Trump Calls for Ban on All Muslims Entering US

[Shadow Wolf]

Until the situation is stable. You can not put a "pull out" date on this like the Obama did. Look how long we have been in South Korea, and Germany.

We haven't been enemies against Germany, or Japan, for decades now, and the presence is a drain of the national budget. The Korean War has technically been ongoing, but we've only held a minimal, albeit wasteful, presence there. The Middle East we would have been fighting in for a very long time, and the trillions of debt from the war would have been pilling on and adding up, as would the amount of troops being sent home in body bags. Eventually there would have been too much domestic unrest to continue it, and a debt that would have done more damage than we had.
Conservatives like to wonder about where the money for feeding the poor and education will come from, but not war, even though war is much more expensive and a massive burden to the national budget of any nation.

 

[metis]

Until the situation is stable. You can not put a "pull out" date on this like the Obama did. Look how long we have been in South Korea, and Germany.

South Korea and Germany were very different scenarios. With the former, they wanted us there; and with the latter, most people were fed up with what the NAZI's did and wanted change, plus the western powers agreed to hold free elections, although the Soviets obviously didn't. After two world wars, the German people had no desire to go through that again.

In the case of Iraq, 1/3 of the total country's population was either killed or displaced by our actions there, plus we devastated the country economically, and then we helped to set up a government that only favored one segment of the population. If one lived there, what's there to like after what we did? Yes, most hated Hussein and were glad he was gone, but when we dismantled their military and government, it left us in charge, and which country wants to be run by another country that just destroyed so much of it?

 

[esmith]

But that's not what happened. Stop and think, why would the Iraqi government that was aligned with the Shi'a leadership want us to stay? We know they didn't want us to stay, and the only way we could have stayed would be to ignore their demands, which then leaves us with no internal support.

To your first statement "But that's not what happened"....yeah and look where it got us. First Iraq was not ready for a civilian government. Those Iraqis that wanted power was only for their own self interest. Too little time had passed from the overthrow of Saddam to establishing a civilian government that basically purged Sunnis from the government and the military. See What We Left Behind for a good explanation of the results of allowing basically another dictator to take power. I know you will object to what I am going to suggest what should have been done, but it might have resulted in a "controlled peace". The average Iraqis could have cared less who was "in charge" as long as they could return to a normal life. What should have been put in places is basically based on post-war Japans government.

And why was leaving a "bad idea"? How many more tours of duty would we subject our troops to? What of our men and women in uniform and civilians working there coming home in body bags? Do you honestly believe for one minute that the American public wanted to see more of this when surveys clearly indicated that the public wanted us out?

Why was leaving a "bad idea". Because it left a power vacuum. Look at the disastrous results in Libya. We basically had the support of the leaders in the North and they were basically controlling the area. Yet the civilian government that we left unchecked rekindled the "civil war". As far as casualties....there is always going to be casualties when one is trying to maintain peace....we broke it we had to fix it. Sometimes the American people really don't know what they really want. Look at the current views of the American public when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike the Obama a good leader has to be able to explain why something is necessary. The Obama doesn't want to deal with the problem now and never really did. Events control decisions not desires. He, the Obama, now has to face a situation that has developed during his term as President and it doesn't fit his idea of what he wants to focus on.

 

[Underhill]

Until the situation is stable. You can not put a "pull out" date on this like the Obama did. Look how long we have been in South Korea, and Germany.

So indefinitely. Got it.

 

[Underhill]

The Law of Moses is eternal as a spiritual guide, but it should not be applied as a legal code by Christians. That means that adultery will always be wrong, but we don't stone anyone for adultery. If someone believes that the Old Testament should still be applied as a legal code, he is either ignorant or stupid. You can't blame God for it. By the way, the Qur'an is not to be picked and chosen. There is a strict method of interpretation called Naskh that says that if two passages of the Qur'an contradict each other the older passage is superseded by the newest one. All of the kind and peaceful passages of the Qur'an date from the Mecca period, when Muhammad was weak and harmless. All of the aggressive passages of the Qur'an date from the Medina period, when Muhammad was powerful enough to kill his opponents. Hence, the peaceful verses are superseded by the aggressive ones.

So you are trying to tell me that all muslims accept the aggressive passages as the preeminent scripture of the muslim faith while none of the christians do the same? That is just silly.

I've visited churches where women must keep their heads covered and their mouths shut during church. I've seen plenty of churches who loudly proclaim old testament ideology on their signage and in their sermons. I can't speak to their intelligence.

I've also witnessed leaders of the muslim faith saying Islam is a religion of peace and talked to muslim friends who were adamant in their opposition of radical islam.

I think you want to believe you are right. But clearly you aren't.

 

[Underhill]

To your first statement "But that's not what happened"....yeah and look where it got us. First Iraq was not ready for a civilian government. Those Iraqis that wanted power was only for their own self interest. Too little time had passed from the overthrow of Saddam to establishing a civilian government that basically purged Sunnis from the government and the military. See What We Left Behind for a good explanation of the results of allowing basically another dictator to take power. I know you will object to what I am going to suggest what should have been done, but it might have resulted in a "controlled peace". The average Iraqis could have cared less who was "in charge" as long as they could return to a normal life. What should have been put in places is basically based on post-war Japans government.

Listening to arguments over what should have been done in this case is a bit hard to swallow from someone who seems to support the Bush legacy. What should have been done is we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place. And there are a dozen more mistakes I could list between the time we invaded and Obama took office that have led us to this point. Complaining about Obama pulling us out, when it one of the primary reasons the American people voted for him, is obnoxious.

Why was leaving a "bad idea". Because it left a power vacuum. Look at the disastrous results in Libya. We basically had the support of the leaders in the North and they were basically controlling the area. Yet the civilian government that we left unchecked rekindled the "civil war". As far as casualties....there is always going to be casualties when one is trying to maintain peace....we broke it we had to fix it. Sometimes the American people really don't know what they really want. Look at the current views of the American public when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike the Obama a good leader has to be able to explain why something is necessary. The Obama doesn't want to deal with the problem now and never really did. Events control decisions not desires. He, the Obama, now has to face a situation that has developed during his term as President and it doesn't fit his idea of what he wants to focus on.

Yes, except leaving was mandated by Iraq and by the American people. You cannot just stay in a country indefinitely if both the host country and the voting population who fund the operations do not want us there.

ISIS would have happened even if we had kept a token force there as you suggest. The only difference is that our men would be in harms way. The instability in the middle east needs to happen. This is a battle that needed to take place a long time ago, and that foreign powers have kept the lid on, exacerbating the situation and reeking all kinds of havoc in the process.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The average Iraqis could have cared less who was "in charge" as long as they could return to a normal life.

They have been caring who is in charge, pretty much since the days before WWI and the British promising independence and liberal democracies to the area, only to make good and that promise and forcing new borders and leaders on them. It's why nationalism began to rise in the area during the course of the early-to-mid 20th century.

 

[metis]

To your first statement "But that's not what happened"....yeah and look where it got us. First Iraq was not ready for a civilian government. Those Iraqis that wanted power was only for their own self interest. Too little time had passed from the overthrow of Saddam to establishing a civilian government that basically purged Sunnis from the government and the military. See What We Left Behind for a good explanation of the results of allowing basically another dictator to take power. I know you will object to what I am going to suggest what should have been done, but it might have resulted in a "controlled peace". The average Iraqis could have cared less who was "in charge" as long as they could return to a normal life. What should have been put in places is basically based on post-war Japans government.


Why was leaving a "bad idea". Because it left a power vacuum. Look at the disastrous results in Libya. We basically had the support of the leaders in the North and they were basically controlling the area. Yet the civilian government that we left unchecked rekindled the "civil war". As far as casualties....there is always going to be casualties when one is trying to maintain peace....we broke it we had to fix it. Sometimes the American people really don't know what they really want. Look at the current views of the American public when it comes to foreign policy. Unlike the Obama a good leader has to be able to explain why something is necessary. The Obama doesn't want to deal with the problem now and never really did. Events control decisions not desires. He, the Obama, now has to face a situation that has developed during his term as President and it doesn't fit his idea of what he wants to focus on.

Einstein defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results". I'm not saying nor implying you're insane, but what I am saying is that your proposals above make literally no sense in the context of both what happened there and also with previous situations that parallel this. One would think after our Vietnam experience that we would have learned our lesson about trying to occupy a country whereas most of the people didn't want us there, but some learn all too slowly.

Again, to repeat, how many American service men and women are expendable in an effort that I can guarantee you wouldn't work-- as we've seen! How long could we keep a force in there while our troops remain under attack? Why would you ignore the fact that most Americans wanted out-- aren't we supposed to be a democracy? Why would those who live in Iraq embrace us since we destabilized the entire country and darn near sent them back into the stone age? Why would a country of mostly Shi'i Muslims want us to stay? Why would you be willing to subject our troops and civilians to the Iraqi court system?

I've spend roughly 40 years studying the Middle East because of my profession, including belonging to the Council on North African and Near Eastern Studies, and what you are proposing makes not one iota of sense. We simply cannot continuously occupy a country whereas the vast majority of the people do not want us there-- not in today's world. The idea that an American force is going to win the hearts and minds of the people in a mostly Shi'a Muslim nation is nonsense, and without their hearts and minds, our troops and civilian personnel there would just be targets.

Your proposal would only work under one condition, and that is that we would be just as brutal and ruthless as some of the previous occupiers were. But that would take a huge commitment of military power and massive resources, and in the long run, we would still be leaving. What's unfortunate is that all too often we Americans think short-term but not long-term. Already, Iraq is as if we had never been there except for the massive damage we did.

We never seem to learn.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your proposal would only work under one condition, and that is that we would be just as brutal and ruthless as some of the previous occupiers were. But that would take a huge commitment of military power and massive resources, and in the long run, we would still be leaving. What's unfortunate is that all too often we Americans think short-term but not long-term. Already, Iraq is as if we had never been there except for the massive damage we did.

And not to mention that is exactly what Bin Laden needed to happen for his plan to defeat America. Bin Laden wasn't stupid. He knew, first hand, how difficult it can be to maintain and imperialist and colonist model. We don't call it that anymore, but the principles are still the same. He also knew Americans can be easily provoked, and that involvements with the Middle East can easily be drawn out. This was his whole plan to defeat America, to get the US military involved in a very long and expensive war, bankrupt America, and tear it apart from the inside out. He knew he couldn't win on the battlefield, and that winning on the battlefield isn't necessary to win a war. It really sucks what's going on, but the rising debt does have the country tearing at the seems, and our continued involvement is posing an increasing danger to the general public, and they have motivated at least a few lone operatives here to attack. Too bad we didn't learn from England that it's not a "winnable" situation, they don't want foreigners designing their governments, and get along just about as well as the British, Irish, and Scottish used to (with lethal hostilities arising not even half a century ago).

 

[metis]

And not to mention that is exactly what Bin Laden needed to happen for his plan to defeat America. Bin Laden wasn't stupid. He knew, first hand, how difficult it can be to maintain and imperialist and colonist model. We don't call it that anymore, but the principles are still the same. He also knew Americans can be easily provoked, and that involvements with the Middle East can easily be drawn out. This was his whole plan to defeat America, to get the US military involved in a very long and expensive war, bankrupt America, and tear it apart from the inside out. He knew he couldn't win on the battlefield, and that winning on the battlefield isn't necessary to win a war. It really sucks what's going on, but the rising debt does have the country tearing at the seems, and our continued involvement is posing an increasing danger to the general public, and they have motivated at least a few lone operatives here to attack. Too bad we didn't learn from England that it's not a "winnable" situation, they don't want foreigners designing their governments, and get along just about as well as the British, Irish, and Scottish used to (with lethal hostilities arising not even half a century ago).

Absolutely. Why would bin-Laden want to pull off 9-11 in the first place? Was it that he felt he could destroy America? that we would turn tail and run? No, and in one of the tapes he actually says it was done to draw us into a no-win situation, much like they did against the Russians. ISIS is trying to do the same thing and has admitted as such.

Therefore, occupying Iraq was literally idiotic, especially since they had nothing to do with 9-11, and in the case of Afghanistan, our better move would have been to use some bombings against strategic training camps and other resources over an extended period of time, but not to invade and take over. Reagan used that latter tactic against Quadaffi in Libya, and Q. suddenly got "religion".

BTW, ISIS is hurting right now by, not only losing territory, but also those leaving other countries to join them has sharply fallen off. Even the Saudis are finally helping out, but certainly not enough as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Crypto2015]

So you are trying to tell me that all muslims accept the aggressive passages as the preeminent scripture of the muslim faith while none of the christians do the same? That is just silly.

I've visited churches where women must keep their heads covered and their mouths shut during church. I've seen plenty of churches who loudly proclaim old testament ideology on their signage and in their sermons. I can't speak to their intelligence.

I've also witnessed leaders of the muslim faith saying Islam is a religion of peace and talked to muslim friends who were adamant in their opposition of radical islam.

I think you want to believe you are right. But clearly you aren't.

The passages in the Bible that talk about warfare were not written for the Christians, at least not in a literal sense. Jesus is the role model for all Christians. Hence, we, Christians, must behave as Jesus behaved. He wasn't a warlord, he didn't kill anyone, or raped anyone. The teachings of Jesus shed a new light upon the Old Testament and this new light is a message of peace and love for our enemies. When it comes to Islam, the first teachings are peaceful simply because Muhammad was politically and militarily weak when he started preaching. However, as Islam grew in power, the message became more and more violent and aggressive. So, the message of Islam goes from peaceful to violent. Furthermore, the Qur'an explicitly says that the new verses supersede the old ones. This is the standard Islamic way of interpretation (Naskh). Islam had not been called "the religion of peace" until the 20th century. The reason why it started to be labelled as such was the advent of a new form of political Islam, that strove to win the hearts and minds of the Westerners by presenting a westernized version of Islam. Those who popularized the term "religion of peace" were either Western politicians or deceitful Islamic jihadists. Islam is not a religion of peace. Just look at the biography of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. Was he a man of peace? The Qur'an tells us that all Muslims must behave just like Muhammad.

 

[Crypto2015]

Zacchaues was going "Look, Lord, just look what I'm doing!" which is something we know Jesus didn't approve of. When Jesus talks of the parable, it can easily be read that he is the King, as he was sent to the Earth, a far country, for a time, and then would return to Heaven. His servants, us humans, were sent out to the world, and Jesus warned many times that people would not like Christians, would not like himself, and would rebel against God. And even though his ways are hard, those who followed them, and his ways (which included not being a show off) are rewarded with treasures in heaven that far exceed any wealth given to them on earth, just as the servants who were given 10 minas to start with were rewarded with the governance of cities equal to the interest they earned. They kept their faith, they had, and they were given more. But those that had none, those wicked servants those that did not want the king to rule over them and follow his hard ways, they were ordered to be brought before the king and executed.

My claims are not false.

You are being unreasonable. Jesus never instructed anyone to fight for him or to kill for him. On the contrary, when Peter attacked those who were trying to arrest Jesus, Jesus rebuked Peter and healed the servant that had been wounded by Peter. The supposed violent message that you see in the New Testament is simply not there. On the other hand, Muhammad instructed people to kill and torture for him. He did it many, many times. He also instructed his followers to kill as many Jews as they could because only that would bring about the end of times. I can provide you with citations to prove everything I am saying.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The supposed violent message that you see in the New Testament is simply not there.

The instructions are still clear: Kill those who don't want the King to reign over them.

On the other hand, Muhammad instructed people to kill and torture for him. He did it many, many times. He also instructed his followers to kill as many Jews as they could because only that would bring about the end of times. I can provide you with citations to prove everything I am saying.

It's actually contradictory - that is there, but there is also bits about not killing them and even respecting them, and even a passage about there being no compulsion of religion. And during the height of the Ottoman Empire, the "People of the Book," meaning Jews and Christians, weren't killed and were allowed to continue to practice their faith. It's actually a part of Sharia law to practice peace and tolerance towards and allow them autonomy because they also follow the God of Abraham.

 

[Crypto2015]

The instructions are still clear: Kill those who don't want the King to reign over them.

It's actually contradictory - that is there, but there is also bits about not killing them and even respecting them, and even a passage about there being no compulsion of religion. And during the height of the Ottoman Empire, the "People of the Book," meaning Jews and Christians, weren't killed and were allowed to continue to practice their faith. It's actually a part of Sharia law to practice peace and tolerance towards and allow them autonomy because they also follow the God of Abraham.

The passage about the king that returns from his crowning (Luke 19) is clearly talking about Jesus' second coming. From the rest of the Bible it is clear that the "slaying" is Judgment Day. On Judgement Day all the enemies of God will be thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity. This is the slaying and will be done by God and his angels, not by the Christians. No Christian had ever interpreted this passage as meaning that we are meant to slay someone.

Regarding the Qu'ran, I already explained to you how the Qur'an instruct Muslims to make sense of the contradictions (google Naskh). According to Sharia law, Christians and Jews must be humbled and humiliated. They must pay a special tax called Jizya that can be up to 80% of their income in order to stay alive. If they fail to pay, they are immediately beheaded. Atheists like you are immediately beheaded under Sharia law. You don't even get to pay a tax to stay alive. I guess you find these things extremely fair, since for people like you anything that is not a Christian teaching is OK, whereas even the most peaceful teaching are disgusting if they come from Christ.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From the rest of the Bible it is clear that the "slaying" is Judgment Day.

It's not clear because Jesus told his disciples that when he returns, there would be those among them who would not yet know death. You are also failing to realize the point, which is there are multiple interpretations for the Bible as there are with the Quran, as there are with many texts that range from political (US Constitution), philosophical (Friedrich Nietzsche), and even Shakespeare has some areas that are open to multiple interpretations. With the way people post anti-Islam websites, it is equally valid for me to post this:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/luke19_11-27_whyworryitsonlyaparable_1.html

A parable is just a story used to illustrate a lesson. It conveys a meaning by using an analogy. Jesus used a parable to order his minions to murder non-believers. Christian history shows the horrible bloodthirsty results of this lesson. Christianity fulfilled this lesson beyond the author's wildest imagination.


In the image of the parable Jesus told in Luke 19:11-27 (see below), he was the nobleman who became king. Jesus directed this parable toward the non-believers who made up his audience (verses 1-9). These enemy-citizens represented reject Jesus as king. In verse 14 they were called citizens, but by verse 27, through their rebellious refusal to accept the nobleman's (Jesus’) kingship, they are now considered enemies. Therefore, Jesus (the king in the parable) renders a judgment on the unfaithful and disobedient. Just as Matthew’s Jesus declared

, "He who is not with me is against me . . ." (Matthew 12:30), Luke’s Jesus orders his followers to murder those who reject his rule―and to do it in front of him!

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”(Luke 19:27 KJV)

If they fail to pay, they are immediately beheaded.

That is not the case, nor was it the practice. You've clearly been taking information from biased sources if you fail to realize the contradictions in the Quran, including the fact that several times in the Quran it mentions Jews and Christians are Muslims (because Muslim is actually an Arabic word meaning submissive to god, and it is made clear this is the same god of Abraham, the same god of the Jews and Christians, the same people Allah will reward in Paradise for worshiping him and being submissive to him.)

Atheists like you are immediately beheaded under Sharia law.

Great assumption! (I am not an atheist)
You seem to be ignoring the bit about the non-compulsion of religion of Al-Baqara 256. And, as I mentioned, because I do not want Christ reigning over me he feels I am his enemy and he wants to see me killed in front of him. And, historically, Medieval criminal hearings and executions involved the clergy and the presence of Christ would typically be evoked. Sometimes these would happen in front of or within the vicinity of a church.

I guess you find these things extremely fair, since for people like you anything that is not a Christian teaching is OK, whereas even the most peaceful teaching are disgusting if they come from Christ.

Actually, anything that includes slavery, the subjugation of women, genocide, death for trivial offenses, and lots of blood shed is disgusting. Like it or not, both the Bible and Quran teach and promote things that have no place in today's society, and have never deserved any degree of social acceptance. Christ, for the most part, did have good teachings, but it requires reconciliation with Paul, who told slaves to obey, women to not speak in church or hold positions above men, and was so caught up in "getting it right" that he missed the point of Jesus' teachings and behaviors. Jesus said judge not and that he didn't come to condemn, but Paul was very much into being judgmental and condemning those he didn't like.

 

[Crypto2015]

It's not clear because Jesus told his disciples that when he returns, there would be those among them who would not yet know death. You are also failing to realize the point, which is there are multiple interpretations for the Bible as there are with the Quran, as there are with many texts that range from political (US Constitution), philosophical (Friedrich Nietzsche), and even Shakespeare has some areas that are open to multiple interpretations. With the way people post anti-Islam websites, it is equally valid for me to post this:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/luke19_11-27_whyworryitsonlyaparable_1.html


That is not the case, nor was it the practice. You've clearly been taking information from biased sources if you fail to realize the contradictions in the Quran, including the fact that several times in the Quran it mentions Jews and Christians are Muslims (because Muslim is actually an Arabic word meaning submissive to god, and it is made clear this is the same god of Abraham, the same god of the Jews and Christians, the same people Allah will reward in Paradise for worshiping him and being submissive to him.)

Great assumption! (I am not an atheist)
You seem to be ignoring the bit about the non-compulsion of religion of Al-Baqara 256. And, as I mentioned, because I do not want Christ reigning over me he feels I am his enemy and he wants to see me killed in front of him. And, historically, Medieval criminal hearings and executions involved the clergy and the presence of Christ would typically be evoked. Sometimes these would happen in front of or within the vicinity of a church.

Actually, anything that includes slavery, the subjugation of women, genocide, death for trivial offenses, and lots of blood shed is disgusting. Like it or not, both the Bible and Quran teach and promote things that have no place in today's society, and have never deserved any degree of social acceptance. Christ, for the most part, did have good teachings, but it requires reconciliation with Paul, who told slaves to obey, women to not speak in church or hold positions above men, and was so caught up in "getting it right" that he missed the point of Jesus' teachings and behaviors. Jesus said judge not and that he didn't come to condemn, but Paul was very much into being judgmental and condemning those he didn't like.

Jesus said the following: ""Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28). This was a reference to his resurrection. The Son of Man coming in his kingdom was the resurrected Christ. They were not expecting to see Judgement Day, because they knew that there were many prophecies that needed to be fulfilled before that (i.e., the destruction of the second Temple as prophesied both by Jesus and Daniel, which took place in 70 AD). You can see this clearly from what Paul wrote here: "Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him: We ask you, brothers, not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4). So, they knew from the start that the Antichrist was meant to come before Jesus' second coming. Despite your efforts to show the contrary, the Bible is clear in its message. The Bible tells us that we must love our enemies: "You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don't resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two." (Matthew 5:38-41). There is no other instruction about how to deal with our enemies, no authorization to fight evil with evil. We must fight evil with good: "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:20-21)

You are utterly wrong about Islam. What I told you about Islam is mainstream Islam, not the idealized Islam of Obama and Hillary. This is the real Islam:

"... Jews and the Christians ...should be forced to pay Jizya in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way."

Abul A'la Mawdudi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, vol 2, p. 183.

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet .... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. .... the objective of the Islamic ‘ jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule."

Abu A'la Mawdudi in Jihad in Islam
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Terrorism/jihah_in_islam/jihad_in_islam.pdf

You are extremely wrong about the "no compulsion in religion" message. All knowledgeable Muslims know that this message was abolished by Sura 9, that commands Muslims to slay ALL of the unbelievers and fight ALL of the people of the Book. I can easily prove that to you. You are also wrong about Paul. I can also prove that to you. I can do it in another post because this one is too long.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are utterly wrong about Islam.

You are the one who is utterly wrong because you aren't seeing that multiple translations and contradicting passages abound in both the Bible and Koran.
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/cre...ctions-in-the-bible-to-weed-out-the-atheists/
Young Earth creationism evangelist Kent Hovind asserted this week that God had purposefully put contradictions in the Bible to “weed out” non-believers.
http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Rainbow,source:sab

All knowledgeable Muslims know that this message was abolished by Sura 9, that commands Muslims to slay ALL of the unbelievers and fight ALL of the people of the Book.

If that is the case, then where did the Millet System come from? How could it have been practiced?

 

[Crypto2015]

You are the one who is utterly wrong because you aren't seeing that multiple translations and contradicting passages abound in both the Bible and Koran.
That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:13)

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/cre...ctions-in-the-bible-to-weed-out-the-atheists/
Young Earth creationism evangelist Kent Hovind asserted this week that God had purposefully put contradictions in the Bible to “weed out” non-believers.
http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Rainbow,source:sab


If that is the case, then where did the Millet System come from? How could it have been practiced?

You are the one who is wrong and I will tell you why: you atheists believe that the message of the Bible and the message of the Qur'an are so ambiguous that they admit almost any interpretation. This is patently false. Anyone with a honest understanding of what the Bible and the Qur'an teach knows that the message contained in the Bible is clear and unambiguous. The same can be said about the Qur'an and its message. Since you people don't believe in anything, it is impossible for you to understand what is to believe in something. For example, you cite the book of Chronicles without even taking into account that in Acts 15 the early church came to the unambiguous decision that the Christians should not follow the law of Moses as a legal code. Just read that single chapter of the Bible and you will understand why you are so wrong. There are other passages on the topic as well.

So, I cite the Bible to prove my point, but you cite a crazy Young Earth creationist of whom I have never heard. That alone should give you a clue about who is wrong in this discussion. The Millet system actually proves that in Islam people are discriminated according to their religious affiliation. A Muslim and a Christian are not equal before the law in an Islamic state. A Christian is a dhimmi, a second-class citizen that is meant to be killed if he fails to pay the poll tax, fights against a Muslim (even to defend his life or that of a member of his family) etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

you atheists

I already told you, I'm not an atheist, yet you again assumed it. You also ignored my point that pretty much any given text is open to interpretation.

but you cite a crazy Young Earth creationist of whom I have never heard.

He may be a YEC, but it is proof that there is more than one interpretation.

 

[Crypto2015]

I already told you, I'm not an atheist, yet you again assumed it. You also ignored my point that pretty much any given text is open to interpretation.

He may be a YEC, but it is proof that there is more than one interpretation.

Where do you get this idea that religious texts are open to any interpretation? Do you think that this applies to any text? For example, do you think that someone can read my posts and believe that I agree with you in everything? I don't think so. If my posts are clear enough for someone to understand my opinion, why are religious texts so hopelessly ambiguous according to you?