Do you see Donald Trump as a bigot/racist?

[Crashland]

She makes a good point. What did Mohamand teach vs. Jesus?

Going down that road only works as long as you have an extremely narrow view of what Christianity and Islam are. People arbitrarily emphasize and de-emphasize things from their own religious texts and religious prophets all the time, it happens in every religion. It does not make sense to claim there is a correct form of a wrong religion. You can identify what the religion has traditionally taught, you can identify what the majority of professed believers believe, you can identify what is or isn't a literal interpretation of a text. That is all fine but I object to referring to a certain ideology as "true Islam" just because the aforementioned things are consistent with what you think authentic Islam is. There are many Christians who believe that most professed Christians now and throughout history have been very misguided. Let them argue amongst themselves whether a belief being more traditional necessarily means that belief is more true, or whether literal interpretations are more true. Let them twist themselves into ideological pretzels and separate into different factions, Christians and Muslims alike. If you aren't a member of that religion you have no stake in that game, other than to perhaps encourage them to land on an interpretation that doesn't get you killed. Saying that radical Islam is true Islam pushes in the opposite direction.

 

[thoughtomator]

You are failing to separate the doctrine from the individual human being.

I completely understand your argument from a doctrinal standpoint and if that was all we were discussing, we'd be getting into abrogation and reasons how Islam results in jihad by doctrine and then how the dozens of denominations interpret the Quran. However, you must accept that most Muslims do not accept jihad of non-believers, nor do they agree with the tenants of abrogation or have any kind of consensus. Many who get that far in the teachings to understand it as such, either ignore it or turn away from it.

The majority of Muslims are attracted to the older teachings of Muhammad like Christians are to the New Testament. Also, just like Christians most Muslims are quite terrible about personifying doctrine in any real form of consistency. Your position must conclude that all Muslims will inevitably conduct jihad against non-believers to perfect the teachings of Muhammed. Yet the fallacy in that is that 2 billion Muslims on the planet are not doing so and even when faced with this conclusion in the Quran... some out right reject Abrogation and do it openly.

You can prove this for yourself.. this importance to separate doctrine from the human being.

Bring a Baptist, Catholic, and Protestant into the same conversation and point at them all and say to all of them "your Christianity is crazy because some of you like to handle snakes and drink poison". Be prepared when they are abhorrently offended at the suggestion, though maybe one of them might acknowledge that its based on how those "fundamentalists" interpret one scripture from Mark (16:17-18).

See what I'm getting at?

I'm not defending their religion, but I will defend its generalization. Perhaps its because I served next to Muslims who joined the Army after 9/11 just to join the fight in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Generalizing people can never account for who they really are or what they truly stand for... especially when it comes to religion.

This is so packed full of ignorance and fallacy I barely know where to begin to address it, but I'll take a swipe.

- I don't care if some "fundamentalist Christian" believes in speaking in tongues or handling snakes. It doesn't affect others. People have every right to be crazy or wrong, as long as it doesn't harm others; this is freedom of opinion 101. In contrast to fundamentalist Christians merely being harmlessly nuts, fundamentalist Muslims kill other people. If you can't tell the difference you're beyond reason.

- When you talk about the "older teachings of Muhammad" as if some Muslims treat them as distinct from the rest of what their prophet did, you're just revealing your complete ignorance of Islam. Even in his early career, Muhammad was a ranting lunatic so insufferable he was exiled from his hometown, then a highwayman, and soon graduated to murderer. His "older teachings" include stuff like assassinating people who (IMO justly) mocked him. It may have been only later when he became genocidal, engaged in slavery, pedophilia, serial mass murder and so on, but he was never a good person even before his mundane evil graduated to the level of historic evil.

- It's not my responsibility to sort hypocrite Muslims from the true believers. If they have free will and wish to make that distinction, it's their responsibility if they want to be distinct to make themselves so. I see no reason why a person who doesn't believe in an evil creed would claim it, once the stigma and ostracism of associating with it is properly applied. Yes, there should absolutely be at the minimum a social penalty for voluntarily associating with a culture of wanton murder and other horrible qualities.

- Time and time again "nice Muslims" who supposedly didn't believe in the evils of the religion turn on a dime and become the fundamentalist type once their cohorts gain the advantage.

- Frequency does matter. If one out of a million pieces of chicken is infected with e. coli, you can eat chicken every day your whole life and still have a very low chance of getting sick from it. If it's one out of a hundred, you're playing Russian Roulette. So if even only one out of a hundred Muslims is a true-believer, murderous type, it's grossly irresponsible - criminally reckless even - to allow them into your community. And I'm fairly certain that the numbers are closer to one in ten than one in a hundred in this case.


I could go on and on but it's obvious I am not going to be the agent of your education here. Only you can educate yourself on this subject, and I strongly encourage you to do so so that you do not perpetuate these nice-but-false-and-dangerous illusions that have taken root in your mind.

 

[klamath]

In this same thread I posted a staggering statistic that 100 million Christians are currently being persecuted by Muslims today. You really think that will not spill over to here through immigration.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...bigot-racist&p=6066423&viewfull=1#post6066423

If every muslim is as violent as you are trying to push YOU would be dead. There are 1.6 billion of them and if you think our military is holding them off give them a hand and see a recruiter.

 

[klamath]

I didn't vote in the poll either way but after seeing the effect Trumps statements do to supposed individual liberty loving former RP supporters, I believe Trump knows what he is doing and condones it. Voting national socialist racist.

 

[Crashland]

1. "Radical Islam is true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards either radicalization or leaving Islam entirely. We aren't going to like how many will choose the former. This empowers radical islam propaganda and it means non-Muslims are going to be the ones who will have to take it down by force in a giant clash of civilizations.

2. "Radical Islam is not true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards evolving/reforming their religion. Muslims will be the ones on the front lines to take down radicalism either by force or persuasion.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand wants to stop immigration from 23 countries until all this is sorted out. Which is basically the same as what Trump was getting at, but Rand's approach is much better.

Though, something tells me that the open borders useful idiots won't be pleased about that either.

 

[thoughtomator]

1. "Radical Islam is true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards either radicalization or leaving Islam entirely. We aren't going to like how many will choose the former. This empowers radical islam propaganda and it means non-Muslims are going to be the ones who will have to take it down by force in a giant clash of civilizations.

2. "Radical Islam is not true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards evolving/reforming their religion. Muslims will be the ones on the front lines to take down radicalism either by force or persuasion.

This is absurdity on par with Sen. Feinstein saying that killers will lay down their weapons and stop shooting when they see nobody else is armed.

Islam has no interest in reform. Why would they? They think they are winning their eternal war and all they have to do is wait for victory. As long as their enemies cannot soberly contend with the true nature of Islam, and cannot face it with equal resolve, they are right.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Islam has no interest in reform. Why would they? They think they are winning their eternal war and all they have to do is wait for victory. As long as their enemies cannot soberly contend with the true nature of Islam, and cannot face it with equal resolve, they are right.

The vast majority of Muslims simply do not behave as you seem to think they must, as per your interpretation of their religion.

They are not hell bent on exterminating/converting all non-Muslims; on the contrary, non-Muslims are tolerated (if somewhat segregated) in most Muslim societies.

...as has been the historical norm for centuries.

 

[presence]

I see Donald Trump as the Pied Piper from Megadeth's Symphony of Destruction fishing for the ultimate crony capital side gig: building a mega fence.

 

[Crashland]

This is absurdity on par with Sen. Feinstein saying that killers will lay down their weapons and stop shooting when they see nobody else is armed.

Islam has no interest in reform. Why would they? They think they are winning their eternal war and all they have to do is wait for victory. As long as their enemies cannot soberly contend with the true nature of Islam, and cannot face it with equal resolve, they are right.

That is a recipe for WWIII. History shows us that religions are quite reformable. No one is suggesting that the people who are already radicalized are going to turn peaceful. But if you say that Islam is inherently incompatible with peaceful co-existence and essentially give Muslims a binary choice between violence and rejecting their faith, you are going to create a massive problem. If you think ISIS is bad now and that repressive societies are bad now, just wait to see what happens when you alienate the billions who haven't yet been inclined to engage in terrorism.

 

[Influenza]

She makes a good point. What did Mohamand teach vs. Jesus?

Not sure what Jesus taught. He definitely didn't teach that he was God yet all the Christians seem to believe that somehow.

 

[jkob]

Why does our immigration policy shouldn't have to fit the interests of Democratic Party or Chamber of Commerce? Why do we have to a "humanitarian" immigration policy? Why doesn't Israel take some refugees, they're not dangerous right? All those rich Arab Gulf countries are funding this civil war so what are they doing for these refugees? Shouldn't Japan and South Korea share?

 

[thoughtomator]

That is a recipe for WWIII. History shows us that religions are quite reformable.

Christianity is one. Name another religion which has been reformed. (Note: "Reform Judaism" is a misnomer - that is a localization, not a reform in the sense that we're discussing.)

No one is suggesting that the people who are already radicalized are going to turn peaceful. But if you say that Islam is inherently incompatible with peaceful co-existence and essentially give Muslims a binary choice between violence and rejecting their faith, you are going to create a massive problem.

It's not me who creates that problem. I am merely an observer of a problem which existed over a thousand years ago.

If you think ISIS is bad now and that repressive societies are bad now, just wait to see what happens when you alienate the billions who haven't yet been inclined to engage in terrorism.

We've been kissing Saudi ass now for many decades, and they haven't gotten any tamer. If anything they've gotten worse. ISIS is basically a proto-Saudi Arabia, its creed and justice system are for all practical purposes identical.

And again, you're putting the onus on the wrong people. It's not Islam's critics that are causing anything, it's its followers. Blaming truth-tellers is just like blaming the victims of crime. Islam shouldn't be any of our business, but they've made it so - and now that it is, the first order of business is to recognize the reality and act accordingly.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Name another religion which has been reformed.

How about Islam?

For most of its history, it was much like traditional Christianity.

In the last century, there are have a been a couple major reform movements.

In the immediately post-colonial era, it took a turn toward Marxism, under the tutelage of the USSR, as did so many post-colonial societies - this movement is largely dead.

Around the same time, a liberalizing/Westernizing movement sprang up, under the influence of Western-educated Muslim elites, which is still ongoing.

Then, more recently, there's been this violent fundamentalist movement, obviously ongoing, which was largely a reaction to local political problems and Western meddling.

 

[dusman]

This is so packed full of ignorance and fallacy I barely know where to begin to address it, but I'll take a swipe.

- I don't care if some "fundamentalist Christian" believes in speaking in tongues or handling snakes. It doesn't affect others. People have every right to be crazy or wrong, as long as it doesn't harm others; this is freedom of opinion 101. In contrast to fundamentalist Christians merely being harmlessly nuts, fundamentalist Muslims kill other people. If you can't tell the difference you're beyond reason.

- When you talk about the "older teachings of Muhammad" as if some Muslims treat them as distinct from the rest of what their prophet did, you're just revealing your complete ignorance of Islam. Even in his early career, Muhammad was a ranting lunatic so insufferable he was exiled from his hometown, then a highwayman, and soon graduated to murderer. His "older teachings" include stuff like assassinating people who (IMO justly) mocked him. It may have been only later when he became genocidal, engaged in slavery, pedophilia, serial mass murder and so on, but he was never a good person even before his mundane evil graduated to the level of historic evil.

- It's not my responsibility to sort hypocrite Muslims from the true believers. If they have free will and wish to make that distinction, it's their responsibility if they want to be distinct to make themselves so. I see no reason why a person who doesn't believe in an evil creed would claim it, once the stigma and ostracism of associating with it is properly applied. Yes, there should absolutely be at the minimum a social penalty for voluntarily associating with a culture of wanton murder and other horrible qualities.

- Time and time again "nice Muslims" who supposedly didn't believe in the evils of the religion turn on a dime and become the fundamentalist type once their cohorts gain the advantage.

- Frequency does matter. If one out of a million pieces of chicken is infected with e. coli, you can eat chicken every day your whole life and still have a very low chance of getting sick from it. If it's one out of a hundred, you're playing Russian Roulette. So if even only one out of a hundred Muslims is a true-believer, murderous type, it's grossly irresponsible - criminally reckless even - to allow them into your community. And I'm fairly certain that the numbers are closer to one in ten than one in a hundred in this case.


I could go on and on but it's obvious I am not going to be the agent of your education here. Only you can educate yourself on this subject, and I strongly encourage you to do so so that you do not perpetuate these nice-but-false-and-dangerous illusions that have taken root in your mind.

Yeah... from reading your post, I'm not convinced you, yourself, have studied Islam to any other standard than to vilify it. That's fine. It sounds a lot to me like how an athiest might talk about the Bible. "Oh I've read it front to back" but can't really define anything substantial about its principles.. only focused on pointing out the negatives of Christianity.

Atheists rail against examples in Old Testament to justify their opposition not realizing most denominations of Christianity accept that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy and law of Old Testament and all the punishment of God is paid in the suffering and blood of Christ and that through him salvation is redeemed. It's a simplification but I digress.

I find it funny that I purposely focused my post almost completely on abrogation and the divisions within the Muslim community and you not only never acknowledged it, but call me ignorant and fallacious for raising it. Frankly, if you aren't willing to acknowledge the principle of abrogation when discussing the Quran, there is no way to have a civil discussion about Islam because it is the distinguishing factor in their entire religion and cause of division and controversy.

Simply put, modern Muslims either outright deny abrogation as a principle in the Quran or believe it only applies in regards to the Torah vs. the Quran (similar to Christianity). Militant Islam exists because they have taken the ideas of abrogation to its extreme and logical conclusion.

Our intervention in the Middle East couldn't have come at a worst time in the history of Islam. The Muslim faith has been going through a fundamental transformation for a hundred years towards a more nuanced approach, which is far less violent, more tolerant, and as a result membership has exploded. When people say Islam is a peaceful religion, it is this new modernist Muslim attempting to create such. It has caused great divides in the Muslim community because there is now no agreement on if and how abrogation should influence their belief. When we got involved for our own interests in the middle of their intellectual revolution toward peace, we flamed the wrong damn side of the counter-culture. It could be irreversible damage we've done in that revolution of ideas.

Nonetheless, you are either naive of the entire picture of Islam or outright promoting bigotry of an entire religion. I find it hard to see what you intend to accomplish in this discussion. If you aren't willing to assign blame to the specific sect of Islam that are radical and instead prefer to vilify the entire religion there can only be one conclusion and it makes you a hypocrite.

You are arguing that the entire Muslim faith is no different than radical Islam and it seems clear you are dedicated to converting others into sharing this belief. If you and others who share your belief are successful in becoming a majority, it will lead to saying all Muslims are non-believers of western principles and therefore enemy combatants. If you have absolutely no desire for tolerance, then you must exterminate its external influence on you.

Explain to me how your beliefs, shared by a majority, don't lead to holocaust of Muslims and Christians? Do you not see this or are you clear minded about that?

 

[dusman]

That is a recipe for WWIII. History shows us that religions are quite reformable. No one is suggesting that the people who are already radicalized are going to turn peaceful. But if you say that Islam is inherently incompatible with peaceful co-existence and essentially give Muslims a binary choice between violence and rejecting their faith, you are going to create a massive problem. If you think ISIS is bad now and that repressive societies are bad now, just wait to see what happens when you alienate the billions who haven't yet been inclined to engage in terrorism.

1. "Radical Islam is true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards either radicalization or leaving Islam entirely. We aren't going to like how many will choose the former. This empowers radical islam propaganda and it means non-Muslims are going to be the ones who will have to take it down by force in a giant clash of civilizations.

2. "Radical Islam is not true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards evolving/reforming their religion. Muslims will be the ones on the front lines to take down radicalism either by force or persuasion.

Yes exactly and said in far fewer words than I could muster. +rep

 

[thoughtomator]

Yeah... from reading your post, I'm not convinced you, yourself, have studied Islam to any other standard than to vilify it.

That's because you've been brainwashed, so anything that contradicts your programming is automatically rejected no matter how well it fits the facts or predicts future events.

You're so worried about a holocaust, yet you ignore the ongoing holocaust of non-Muslim people in Muslim lands. Why is that? Mental conditioning and programming. You will believe anything no matter how contradictory in order to maintain your belief that Islam is not a clear and present danger to all who are not adherents.

Really not seeing why you bring up abrogation as the very concept reinforces my point. Even those rejecting abrogation do not reject the phrases that abrogate, those filled with commands to murder unbelievers.

Basic facts of the matter is that Muhammad commanded his followers to do terrible things to people who are not his followers, and led a life according to those commands. Until and unless these evil commands are specifically rejected, rejection of abrogation does not also reject the phrases said to abrogate, so the evil remains.

To reject the evil commands is to reject Muhammad himself; after all, if you believe in goodness, then it is very non-fitting to believe in a prophet whose life was one of a genocidal maniac. But of course if you reject Muhammad you can't seriously call yourself a Muslim, he is inseparable from the religion he inflicted upon the world.

 

[seapilot]

1. "Radical Islam is true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards either radicalization or leaving Islam entirely. We aren't going to like how many will choose the former. This empowers radical islam propaganda and it means non-Muslims are going to be the ones who will have to take it down by force in a giant clash of civilizations.

2. "Radical Islam is not true Islam" --> pushes billions of people towards evolving/reforming their religion. Muslims will be the ones on the front lines to take down radicalism either by force or persuasion.

Boy did this thread get derailed. I would use the H word but seems in bad taste with the subject being discussed.

Islam denominations

http://www.majorreligions.com/islamic_denominations.php

Salafism appeals to younger Muslims as a way to differentiate themselves from their wrong beliefs of parents and grandparents, because it is seen as pure, stripped of the local, superstitious, and customary Muslim practices of their families' countries of origin. It confers a sense of moral superiority. Salafism has a potent appeal because it underscores Islam's universality.

Salafism reject not only Western ideologies such as Socialism and Capitalism, but also common Western concepts like:

economics
constitutions
political partie,
and revolution

This is the denomination that is making all the news.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

yet you ignore the ongoing holocaust of non-Muslim people in Muslim lands.

Why are you under the mistaken impression that non-Muslims are being exterminated in Muslim majority countries?

This is true in ISIS-controlled Syria-Iraq, and perhaps a few other hotspots, but is certainly not true in most of the Muslim world.

Basic facts of the matter is that Muhammad commanded his followers to do terrible things to people who are not his followers, and led a life according to those commands....But of course if you reject Muhammad you can't seriously call yourself a Muslim, he is inseparable from the religion he inflicted upon the world.

So, the overwhelming majority of self-ascribed Muslims in the world are not actually Muslim (since they don't behave as you say Muslims must)?

Alright, seems like a silly definition, but let's run with it.

If only the people bent on exterminating all non-Muslims are Muslims, then there are no Muslim majority countries anywhere in the world.

Far from being 1.6 billion Muslims, there are something like, say, 100,000.

So where's the big threat then, Muslims being such a tiny minority?

 

[dusman]

That's because you've been brainwashed, so anything that contradicts your programming is automatically rejected no matter how well it fits the facts or predicts future events.

You're so worried about a holocaust, yet you ignore the ongoing holocaust of non-Muslim people in Muslim lands. Why is that? Mental conditioning and programming. You will believe anything no matter how contradictory in order to maintain your belief that Islam is not a clear and present danger to all who are not adherents.

Really not seeing why you bring up abrogation as the very concept reinforces my point. Even those rejecting abrogation do not reject the phrases that abrogate, those filled with commands to murder unbelievers.

Basic facts of the matter is that Muhammad commanded his followers to do terrible things to people who are not his followers, and led a life according to those commands. Until and unless these evil commands are specifically rejected, rejection of abrogation does not also reject the phrases said to abrogate, so the evil remains.

To reject the evil commands is to reject Muhammad himself; after all, if you believe in goodness, then it is very non-fitting to believe in a prophet whose life was one of a genocidal maniac. But of course if you reject Muhammad you can't seriously call yourself a Muslim, he is inseparable from the religion he inflicted upon the world.

I once thought like you and took it so seriously that I joined the Army. I am over my days of hating Muslims because of a mistaken belief that they are all evil. I don't come to my conclusion from brainwashing. I reach it by reading, studying carefully, and trying to understand what brings people to that faith.

You don't seem to understand how abrogation works in the Quran. It is through strict abrogation that they arrive to jihad as the only logical conclusion. I'm explaining to you that modern Muslims reject abrogation in the way radical Islam uses it. Strict abrogation says offensive war against non-believers is the only path, because at the end of Muhammad's life was when he was most violent and abrogation says everything prior is essentially null and void. The transition of the past 100 years or so is in direct contrast to that and even out right rejection of those principles in most of the Muslim faith. This is a difficult thing to understand because the Quran isn't organized chronologically, but by the size of the chapters. There is so much division within the faith that it's largely being corrected through reformation and we would be smart to remain as far from that effort as possible. Lest we be accused as Christians to have corrupted the reformers.

Prior to our engagement in the Middle East, millions of Christians lived along side Muslims. If all Muslims were practicing radical Islam.. this should not even be possible. In some of the ME states, Christians actually hold government positions. How is this possible? I'm not saying there isn't violence, but its distinct from the idea that 2 billion are violent.

I'll end this conversation with a few final thoughts, because I don't think you are willing to see things any other way.

In my opinion, Muslim worship is nothing more than pagan worship of Tammuz and Semiramis. It heavily derives from pagan Moon and Venus worship. Before Islam, the Kaaba was adorned with Hubal statues and depictions. Hubal was a moon deity and is who they call Allah. This escapes the attention of those in their religion, that Mohammad was raised under Hubal worship and his objective was to replace polytheism with monotheism. He chose to represent Hubal as the one and only god - Allah. Semiramis is a deity of Venus (but often depicted with the crescent moon as well). This is why Islamic flags represent Venus being eclipsed by the Crescent Moon (it is mistaken as a star). If you understand why this is of concern... then you realize the problem is far greater than the Muslim faith.