Angola bans Islam - becomes first country to do so.

[OakWood]

During WW2, there were Nazis is the U.S. During WW2, the Japanese people were gathered and placed in camps. That has since been deemed to have been wrong. Lots of innocent Japanese citizens of the U.S. lost jobs, homes etc, even though they were not the enemy.

 

It is not illegal to practice the Muslim religion, unless that practices breaks the law of the U.S. It is not illegal to be a Muslim. It is not illegal for a Muslim to be a policeman, or a judge, or fight in the armed services, or become teachers. It is not illegal for Muslims to live together in a neighborhood. (Lots of cities have ethnic neighborhoods. In big cities, there are Jewish neighborhoods). None of these things are beyond the law. We all have the same rights, as any one of us, who wants to be a policeman, judge, in the army, a teacher, etc. can do that. What is dangerous is to target a group of people and deny them the right of choosing what they want to do for work.

 

In Europe, there was a time when countries did not allow the Jewish people to own land or other property. The Jewish people were banned from working in certain businesses or professions. In Christian countries, they believed that Christians should not load money to other Christians and put them in debt, so they allowed, or almost required that the Jewish people provide loans to Christians. The Jewish people were allowed to loan and charge an interest. Of course, later, the people thought of Jewish people as money grubbers and hated the Jewish people. So what the Jewish people were required by law to do, resulted in hatred of the Jewish people and persecution. If it was wrong to do to the Jewish people, what makes it right to do to the Muslims? It isn't right. All people should have opportunities, a place to practice their faith safely, as long as they do not break the law. No laws should be made banning any religion in the U.S. And that includes Christianity. I find it scary that Christians can be labeled as radicals and terrorists by some government officials. I also find it scary when Christians want to ban Muslims. I see no difference between banning Jews, Christians or Muslims. I am against outlawing atheism. I am against banning Wiccans too. As long as the practice of these religions do not violate the laws, no murder, etc, then we should be fighting for the rights of all people, or risk being the targets ourselves when some group decides they hate us too.

 

In order to practise Islam you have to break the laws of the U.S. that is the whole point.

 

If a Muslim abandons his faith he must be put to death - that is against the law of the U.S.

 

If a woman disgraces her family she must be put to death - that is against the law of the U.S.

 

I could go on. The list is enormous.

 

You can't make laws to stop people believing in something or worshiping in private but you can take away a religion's status for example. You can take away tax relief for mosques and refuse to legally recognise them as places of worship. You can discredit Islam as a religion and take away all its rights as a religious organisation. You can refuse to recognise Islamic charities and take away their tax relief (they all donate to jihadi groups anyway). You can make it illegal for Muslims to have gender segregation in their schools. You can stop molly-coddling Muslims and stop giving them special privileges over everyone else.

That is what it means to make Islam illegal.

[Qnts2]

In order to practise Islam you have to break the laws of the U.S. that is the whole point.

 

If a Muslim abandons his faith he must be put to death - that is against the law of the U.S.

 

If a woman disgraces her family she must be put to death - that is against the law of the U.S.

 

I could go on. The list is enormous.

 

You can't make laws to stop people believing in something or worshiping in private but you can take away a religion's status for example. You can take away tax relief for mosques and refuse to legally recognise them as places of worship. You can discredit Islam as a religion and take away all its rights as a religious organisation. You can refuse to recognise Islamic charities and take away their tax relief (they all donate to jihadi groups anyway). You can make it illegal for Muslims to have gender segregation in their schools. You can stop molly-coddling Muslims and stop giving them special privileges over everyone else.

That is what it means to make Islam illegal.

 

There have been Muslims who have lived in the U.S. for years and years. No issues at all.

 

In your view, a Muslim is abandoning their faith if they do not put a former Muslim to death. In your view, a Muslim is abandoning their faith if a woman 'disgraces'. But, there are a lot of Muslims who do not practice these things and never have. So, you are speaking about a small more radical group, and not all Muslims.

 

In Spain, Portugal etc. Judaism was outlawed, and every Jewish person was forced to convert to Catholicism. The Jewish converts were called Marrano's and were viewed with some suspicion, and not given the same rights. Because of the forced conversion, some Jewish people continued to practice Judaism in secret, in their homes. Along came the inquisition, and the Jewish converts were picked up and tortured or killed.  

 

Take away tax relief for mosques, and you have legalized the ability in the U.S. for tax exempt status to be removed from any religion those in government at that time dislike. Get some anti-Israel/anti-semitic people in office and Judaism is made illegal. Same with fundamental Christianity. Nope, it has to be equal rights. Islam is a religion and must have the same rights and laws as all other religions. Go after one group and deny them the same rights, you have persecution. The U.S. constitution was written to allow for freedom of religion.

[OakWood]

There have been Muslims who have lived in the U.S. for years and years. No issues at all.

 

In your view, a Muslim is abandoning their faith if they do not put a former Muslim to death. In your view, a Muslim is abandoning their faith if a woman 'disgraces'. But, there are a lot of Muslims who do not practice these things and never have. So, you are speaking about a small more radical group, and not all Muslims.

 

In Spain, Portugal etc. Judaism was outlawed, and every Jewish person was forced to convert to Catholicism. The Jewish converts were called Marrano's and were viewed with some suspicion, and not given the same rights. Because of the forced conversion, some Jewish people continued to practice Judaism in secret, in their homes. Along came the inquisition, and the Jewish converts were picked up and tortured or killed.  

 

Take away tax relief for mosques, and you have legalized the ability in the U.S. for tax exempt status to be removed from any religion those in government at that time dislike. Get some anti-Israel/anti-semitic people in office and Judaism is made illegal. Same with fundamental Christianity. Nope, it has to be equal rights. Islam is a religion and must have the same rights and laws as all other religions. Go after one group and deny them the same rights, you have persecution. The U.S. constitution was written to allow for freedom of religion.

 

I can clearly see that you don't much about Islam.

Of course, there are many peaceful Muslims. They tend not to understand their own faith or are in denial about its violent side.

Any Muslim who does not follow the Qu'ran to the letter of the law is known as a 'hypocrite' and is guilty of apostasy. That's one reason why Islam is as much of a danger to 'moderate' Muslims as it is to non-Muslims. In order to practise the religion correctly you have to believe in the more violent and seditious side of it. There are verses in the hadiths and the Qu'ran that testify this.

Muslims are also meant to practise taqiyya (deceit) which means that they are allowed to tell lies to non-Muslim in order to further the cause of Islam. Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace is an example of taqiyya designed to fool non-Muslims into a false sense of security. Mohammed himself used this tactic frequently. He made pacts with then non-Muslims then attacked them when they least expected it. It's the same sort of thing when Muslims tell us that Sharia law is benign and harmless and has many interpretations, when in fact it is actually brutal and oppressive.

It is the duty of all Muslims to carry out jihad (holy war) or if they physically can't then to assist those who do. Muslims who don't are in danger of eternal hellfire. The sole aim of jihad is conquest and to enable complete Global domination by Islam. Jihad can take many forms, it is not always violent. It can be done by sedition or by excessive immigration and childbirth leading to population control, by out-breeding the native population. Again this is backed up by Muslim scripture and the evidence of its use is overwhelming.

We have another problem with taqiyya too. Taqiyya means that we cannot always distinguish between radical Muslims and nice friendly moderate Muslims. The moderate ones may be deceiving us. Muslims are always peaceful when in a minority or in a position of weakness. They are told to bide their time. Once they gain the upper hand they start making demands or worse still, start behaving violently. This is the nature of Islam.

Ever since the birth of Islam it has tried to conquer the World. Within a hundred years of the death of Mohammed, Islam had conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, India and even Spain. The Muslims never stopped trying. They attacked Southern France at Tours in 732 AD and attacked Vienna as late as 1683 AD. Luckily they were stopped on both occasions. If the Pope hadn't started the Crusades Muslims would have conquered Europe. They continued to be a pain right until the early Twentieth Century when the British Empire finally quarantined them. For fifty years or so they remained dormant but thanks to oil money and massive immigration to the West the jihad has started again.

[Guest shiloh357]

It is important not to confuse nonviolent Muslims with peaceful Muslims.   There are many nonviolent Muslims who enable the terrorists through fund-raising.  Also keep in mind that moderate vs. extremist/radical is a western, political distinction to justify American interests in countries like Saudi Arabia.  Even though SA funds terrorism, they are labled as "moderate" in order to protect American interests in that culture.

[Qnts2]

I can clearly see that you don't much about Islam.

Of course, there are many peaceful Muslims. They tend not to understand their own faith or are in denial about its violent side.

Any Muslim who does not follow the Qu'ran to the letter of the law is known as a 'hypocrite' and is guilty of apostasy. That's one reason why Islam is as much of a danger to 'moderate' Muslims as it is to non-Muslims. In order to practise the religion correctly you have to believe in the more violent and seditious side of it. There are verses in the hadiths and the Qu'ran that testify this.

Muslims are also meant to practise taqiyya (deceit) which means that they are allowed to tell lies to non-Muslim in order to further the cause of Islam. Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace is an example of taqiyya designed to fool non-Muslims into a false sense of security. Mohammed himself used this tactic frequently. He made pacts with then non-Muslims then attacked them when they least expected it. It's the same sort of thing when Muslims tell us that Sharia law is benign and harmless and has many interpretations, when in fact it is actually brutal and oppressive.

It is the duty of all Muslims to carry out jihad (holy war) or if they physically can't then to assist those who do. Muslims who don't are in danger of eternal hellfire. The sole aim of jihad is conquest and to enable complete Global domination by Islam. Jihad can take many forms, it is not always violent. It can be done by sedition or by excessive immigration and childbirth leading to population control, by out-breeding the native population. Again this is backed up by Muslim scripture and the evidence of its use is overwhelming.

We have another problem with taqiyya too. Taqiyya means that we cannot always distinguish between radical Muslims and nice friendly moderate Muslims. The moderate ones may be deceiving us. Muslims are always peaceful when in a minority or in a position of weakness. They are told to bide their time. Once they gain the upper hand they start making demands or worse still, start behaving violently. This is the nature of Islam.

Ever since the birth of Islam it has tried to conquer the World. Within a hundred years of the death of Mohammed, Islam had conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, India and even Spain. The Muslims never stopped trying. They attacked Southern France at Tours in 732 AD and attacked Vienna as late as 1683 AD. Luckily they were stopped on both occasions. If the Pope hadn't started the Crusades Muslims would have conquered Europe. They continued to be a pain right until the early Twentieth Century when the British Empire finally quarantined them. For fifty years or so they remained dormant but thanks to oil money and massive immigration to the West the jihad has started again.

 

So, you claim that in order to follow Islam correctly, a person has to be violent. Thousands of Muslims would disagree with you. I think Muslims understand Islam better then you do. There are radical Muslims and Muslims who are not radical. Your version of what Islam is, is the radical Islam. Do you know there are radical Christians and Christians who are not radical? I would hate for non-Christians to see Christianity as only the radical version. There are also a few radical Jewish people, but they do not really represent Judaism.

 

As far as the crusades, I would not be holding them up as a good example. The Pope started the crusades because he thought Christianity should have the land of Israel. It was to take the land of Israel from the Muslims who were in control. The reason was, essentially, Replacement Theology. The Catholic church believed that they replaced the children of Israel, and were now Israel, and the land belonged to them. In the process of trying to take the land of Israel, the Crusades involved killing thousands of Jewish people. At one point, a Catholic official affirmed the murder of Jewish people.  At the time during the crusades that transubstination became an official doctrine, the Jewish people were required to wear identifying badges, which of course made it easier to identify Jews and led to more persecution, but the blood libel also grew against the Jews arrousing more persecution and hatred.

 

Yet, it seems that these very unbiblical radical things done during the crusades, you hold up as good, because the crusades were against Muslims. I call the crusades radical Christianity, and not much different then Radical Islam. Christianity was claiming to be Israel, went out to conquer land and countries, murdering thousands of innocent people on the way.

[Qnts2]

It is important not to confuse nonviolent Muslims with peaceful Muslims.   There are many nonviolent Muslims who enable the terrorists through fund-raising.  Also keep in mind that moderate vs. extremist/radical is a western, political distinction to justify American interests in countries like Saudi Arabia.  Even though SA funds terrorism, they are labled as "moderate" in order to protect American interests in that culture.

 

Whenever there is a radical group, there are usually moderates also.  And wherever there is a religious group, there are usually extremists or radicals.

 

In the U.S., our constitution protects certain rights of people, no matter which religion they practice. It gives the people the right to practice their religion as long as that practice does not violate the laws, such as not murdering, or not persecuting others, or not abusing children, or not plotting the overthrow of the U.S. government. So, if a radical religious group, goes against the law of the U.S., they can be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced, but the religion itself minus those things which break the law, is not against the law. 

 

If some in Judaism practiced stoning, that would be illegal. If Christianity had a crusade in the U.S., that would be illegal, and if some Muslims try to murder Christians or Jews in the U.S., that would be illegal.

[OakWood]

So, you claim that in order to follow Islam correctly, a person has to be violent. Thousands of Muslims would disagree with you. I think Muslims understand Islam better then you do. There are radical Muslims and Muslims who are not radical. Your version of what Islam is, is the radical Islam. Do you know there are radical Christians and Christians who are not radical? I would hate for non-Christians to see Christianity as only the radical version. There are also a few radical Jewish people, but they do not really represent Judaism.

 

As far as the crusades, I would not be holding them up as a good example. The Pope started the crusades because he thought Christianity should have the land of Israel. It was to take the land of Israel from the Muslims who were in control. The reason was, essentially, Replacement Theology. The Catholic church believed that they replaced the children of Israel, and were now Israel, and the land belonged to them. In the process of trying to take the land of Israel, the Crusades involved killing thousands of Jewish people. At one point, a Catholic official affirmed the murder of Jewish people.  At the time during the crusades that transubstination became an official doctrine, the Jewish people were required to wear identifying badges, which of course made it easier to identify Jews and led to more persecution, but the blood libel also grew against the Jews arrousing more persecution and hatred.

 

Yet, it seems that these very unbiblical radical things done during the crusades, you hold up as good, because the crusades were against Muslims. I call the crusades radical Christianity, and not much different then Radical Islam. Christianity was claiming to be Israel, went out to conquer land and countries, murdering thousands of innocent people on the way.

 

I studied Islam for many years and believe me I know what I am talking about. I am familiar with the Qu'ran and the Sira al-Tabari, and the hadiths Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. All these are holy scripture of Islam. I have also studied the history of Islam and have asked a number of ordinary Muslims questions about their religion which they were unable to answer (but I secretly knew the answers myself), answers which were confirmed by their Imams.

There are many threads here on Islam. Try checking them out and you may learn something.

By the way the Crusades were a belated response to the Muslim capture of Jerusalem and the fact that Muslims were constantly attacking Europe. The Crusaders behaved appallingly, but nevertheless they were originally intended to protect Christendom and to protect pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem, but carry on and defend Islam if you wish, that's your privilege to do so.

Why you wish to defend a Satanic religion is none of my business, but as a Christian I do not wish to do so. I've told you the facts. You can deny that they are facts but I have evidence if you wish  me to give it to you. Although why anybody needs evidence in this day and age is beyond me, as you only have to switch on the evening news to find the answer. Just see how many acts of terrorism are being committed around the World and how many have a Muslim face behind them!

 

Also, you fail to understand what the word 'radical' means. Radical means to get back to roots, or to get back to the true definition of something. If you believe that the Crusades were radical Christians then I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken.

 

Here are some historical facts for you:

 

634 AD - Muslim Arabs capture Jerusalem, eventually building the giant mosque, the Dome of the Rock in 691.

649 AD - Cyprus is invaded by Arabs under the Muslim Caliph, Othman.

711-715 - Southern Spain is invaded and ransacked by the (Muslim) Moors who venture from North Africa via the Strait of Gibraltar.

732 - A large Moorish army is stopped by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours (Poitiers) in Southern France.

827 - The (Muslim) Arabs begin their conquest of Sicily.

1095 - Pope Urban II launches the First Crusade at the request of The Byzantine Emperor to free invaded Christian lands from Muslim rule and to reconquer Jerusalem.

 

Here is a very good worthy thread on Islam:

 

[Qnts2]

I studied Islam for many years and believe me I know what I am talking about. I am familiar with the Qu'ran and the Sira al-Tabari, and the hadiths Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. All these are holy scripture of Islam. I have also studied the history of Islam and have asked a number of ordinary Muslims questions about their religion which they were unable to answer (but I secretly knew the answers myself), answers which were confirmed by their Imams.

There are many threads here on Islam. Try checking them out and you may learn something.

By the way the Crusades were a belated response to the Muslim capture of Jerusalem and the fact that Muslims were constantly attacking Europe. The Crusaders behaved appallingly, but nevertheless they were originally intended to protect Christendom and to protect pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem, but carry on and defend Islam if you wish, that's your privilege to do so.

Why you wish to defend a Satanic religion is none of my business, but as a Christian I do not wish to do so. I've told you the facts. You can deny that they are facts but I have evidence if you wish  me to give it to you. Although why anybody needs evidence in this day and age is beyond me, as you only have to switch on the evening news to find the answer. Just see how many acts of terrorism are being committed around the World and how many have a Muslim face behind them!

 

Also, you fail to understand what the word 'radical' means. Radical means to get back to roots, or to get back to the true definition of something. If you believe that the Crusades were radical Christians then I'm afraid that you are seriously mistaken.

 

Here are some historical facts for you:

 

634 AD - Muslim Arabs capture Jerusalem, eventually building the giant mosque, the Dome of the Rock in 691.

649 AD - Cyprus is invaded by Arabs under the Muslim Caliph, Othman.

711-715 - Southern Spain is invaded and ransacked by the (Muslim) Moors who venture from North Africa via the Strait of Gibraltar.

732 - A large Moorish army is stopped by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours (Poitiers) in Southern France.

827 - The (Muslim) Arabs begin their conquest of Sicily.

1095 - Pope Urban II launches the First Crusade at the request of The Byzantine Emperor to free invaded Christian lands from Muslim rule and to reconquer Jerusalem.

 

Here is a very good worthy thread on Islam:

 

 

 

I am not defending Islam. I am defending the U.S. constitution, and the rights of people to practice their religion in the U.S.

 

I see your characterization of Islam as extremist since you are saying all of Islam is of the extremist type. There really are moderate Muslims, but they are being grouped with the extremists, and you are recommending that they all be treated like extremists. The U.S. constitution provides for certain rights, and to take away those constitutional rights from Muslims, puts everyone in a precarious position.

 

All of the things you have accused Muslims of doing, some segment of Christianity has done. All of the things you say should be done about or to the Muslims, has been done at some point in history to the Jewish people during anti-semitic persecution. I am standing on the simple idea that I do not want done to anyone, what I would not want to be done to me. It doesn't matter if I like or agree with one bit of the Islamic religion, but when it comes to the treatment of people and the U.S. constitution which provides certain rights to people, I will stand against persecution, or violation of the constitution.

 

If you don't like Christians who participated in the crusades being called radicals, then I will simply call them blood-thirsty, anti-semitic, disgusting people. They had no right to attack the land of Israel. They were not 'Israel' as they claimed and such views by Christians should not exist. They were not following Jesus or scripture.

[OakWood]

I am not defending Islam. I am defending the U.S. constitution, and the rights of people to practice their religion in the U.S.

 

I see your characterization of Islam as extremist since you are saying all of Islam is of the extremist type. There really are moderate Muslims, but they are being grouped with the extremists, and you are recommending that they all be treated like extremists. The U.S. constitution provides for certain rights, and to take away those constitutional rights from Muslims, puts everyone in a precarious position.

 

All of the things you have accused Muslims of doing, some segment of Christianity has done. All of the things you say should be done about or to the Muslims, has been done at some point in history to the Jewish people during anti-semitic persecution. I am standing on the simple idea that I do not want done to anyone, what I would not want to be done to me. It doesn't matter if I like or agree with one bit of the Islamic religion, but when it comes to the treatment of people and the U.S. constitution which provides certain rights to people, I will stand against persecution, or violation of the constitution.

 

If you don't like Christians who participated in the crusades being called radicals, then I will simply call them blood-thirsty, anti-semitic, disgusting people. They had no right to attack the land of Israel. They were not 'Israel' as they claimed and such views by Christians should not exist. They were not following Jesus or scripture.

 

I've already said that there are moderate Muslims but that is because they fail to understand their own religion. A moderate Muslim is not a true muslim because they are not practising the religion properly. Please read what I have written and not what you assume that I have written.

 

Big difference:

 

Christians who practise atrocities are going against the teachings of Christ

Muslims who practise atrocities are doing exactly what Mohammed told them to do

 

You just don't get it....... we're talking about Islam here. Bringing Christianity into it is irrelevant. Yes, the Crusaders were anti-Semitic disgusting people but they were not true Christians. Muslims who invaded Jerusalem and murdered people were true Muslims.

That's the difference Christianity teaches peace. Islam teaches war! You can't use moral equivalences here.

Pointing out historical crimes committed in the name of Christianity does not let Muslims off the hook for what the crimes that they are doing today (and have done for over fourteen hundred years).

Islam is meant to dominate the World and  kill non-Muslims, convert them to Islam or subjugate them into slavery. That is its message and that is its purpose. Why do you fail to understand this?

[Qnts2]

I've already said that there are moderate Muslims but that is because they fail to understand their own religion. A moderate Muslim is not a true muslim because they are not practising the religion properly. Please read what I have written and not what you assume that I have written.

 

Big difference:

 

Christians who practise atrocities are going against the teachings of Christ

Muslims who practise atrocities are doing exactly what Mohammed told them to do

 

You just don't get it....... we're talking about Islam here. Bringing Christianity into it is irrelevant. Yes, the Crusaders were anti-Semitic disgusting people but they were not true Christians. Muslims who invaded Jerusalem and murdered people were true Muslims.

That's the difference Christianity teaches peace. Islam teaches war! You can't use moral equivalences here.

Pointing out historical crimes committed in the name of Christianity does not let Muslims off the hook for what the crimes that they are doing today (and have done for over fourteen hundred years).

Islam is meant to dominate the World and  kill non-Muslims, convert them to Islam or subjugate them into slavery. That is its message and that is its purpose. Why do you fail to understand this?

 

Pointing out historical crimes committed by Christians, and then Christians promoting the exact same methods be used against Muslims/Islam is the point. When you compliment the Crusades as a good method of dealing with Muslims, and I look at that history and find out how really awful it was, that is exactly the point.  I do not understand how you are missing my point, unless you are so against Islam and Muslims that you think any method and anything done to Muslims is justified.

 

I do think you are over doing it with blaming all of the wickedness of the world on Muslims. (Of course that happened to the Jewish people which gave those who believed the garbage justification to commit all kinds of atrocities against the Jewish people).

 

I think you are reading the Koran, the same way that radical Muslims read the Koran, but it is not the same way that moderate Muslims read the Koran.