Shouldn't Islam Be Banned In the USA (asked of US citizens only)

I guess from your perspective, the Bill of Rights isn't a part of the Constitution.

 

No, Islam not being a religion has nothing to do with it. It simply is an ideology that is purely OBjective, not SUBjective. The rules are all there. Very clear, and for 1400 years without change. The simply isn't room for interpretation. For example Sura 4:34 says "beat them". That's it. There is no interpretation.

 

No, this is what it says:

http://quran.com/4/34

I guess you ignored everything else in this verse.

 

FALSE ! And haere we have another case of the use of the word "interpretation" gone wild. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that the Supremacy Clause need to be interpreted. What's the matter ? You can't figure out that it says : "This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land" and that therefore supremacist ideologies like Islam are unconstitutional.

Or don't tell me you're going to try to put foward that lamebrain taqiyya that Islamapologists do, by saying Islam isn't supremacist. Oh brother ! High-pitched whistle - eyes rolling around in head. Give us a break !

And the Supremacy Clause is not in the context of the 1st Amendment. The inferior 1st Amendment is in the context of the superior Supremacy Clause.

 

No, because what you mentioned is only one part of the Supremacy Clause:

I think "the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof" includes the Bill of Rights, which Islam is guaranteed under. There's no order of supremacy within the actual clause.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

 

So you're unfamiliar with 1400 years of Muslim genocidal imperialism ? You're unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood in 80 countries, and their hundreds of front organizations in the USA alone ? You're unfamiliar with the Suras and commands of the Koran and Hadith ? You're unfamiliar with polls that show majorities favoring jihad. You're unaware that because of the nature of Islamic jihad (to kill as many "infidels as possible), one single suitcase nuke jihadist can kill a million people in a minute ? (making the point of majorities and minorities, moot). And you don't know how many so-called peaceful/moderate Muslims may not be so peaceful and moderate when their more radical brethren start gaining power ? And you are unfamiliar with (of course) what Muslims do at home behind closed doors ?

When you become more familiar with these things, we can talk about it.

 

What aspects ? You mean you can't see them ? LOL.

Here they are in bold print.

Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) is a crime under US law.
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not less than 20 years, or both.

USC 2385 - Sec. 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

U.S. Code - Title 18: Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; row or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthbecomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

And as for "substantive evidence" :

Stealth Jihad is THE method of operation of the Muslim Brotherhood as was revealed in the 1991 Explanatory Memorandum...for North America, discovered by the FBI in 2005, and declassified in the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas terrorist funding trial in 2007 & 2008.

The key words from it are :

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."

Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al. 7 (21).

If anybody would be looney enough to try to refute this, the US Justice Dept. is the source of the information, and they will back it up. So will the 5 or 6 Muslim Brotherhood leaders convicted in the trial, and now rotting in prison, for the rest of their lives.

 

I have my interpretations of the law. I was just curious as to what your interpretation was, which is obviously literalist.

 

All Islamapologist NONSENSE. You think we haven't seen these crap before ?

As I said there are NO INTREPRETATIONS in Islam. The Koran says what it says. Not one word of it has been changed in 1400 years, In sura 4:34, it says "beat them". Husbands are given permission to beat their wives, period. (a violent crime under US law, as are many of the vile writings of the Koran).

And isn't it interesting that you say "only if the man senses disobedience". Are you nuts ? What do you think gives a husband any right to demand obedience from a wife ? Are you a Muslim ? That would explain your nutty way of thinking.

 

HA HA. Go before a judge as a defendant, and see how far you get giving him a figurative interpretation of the law. Judges enforce the law the same way cops and prosecutors do - Literally. The way the legislators who wrote the law intended.

 

I am not a Muslim. I'm actually a follower of Judaism.

 

FALSE ! it's part of the Constitution but, like every other part of the Constitution, it is subordinate to the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, section 2).

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That "any Thing in the Constitution" part includes the 1st amendment.

 

I think the historical Supreme Court Justice John Marshall would disagree with you. His interpretations of cases such as Marbury vs. Madison, Mccullogh vs. Maryland, and Dartmouth vs. Woodward were all implied, not literal.

 

The why do you talk about such goofball Muslim concepts as wives being required to obey husbands ? (as if they has a shred of validity in America).

 

I merely state truths based upon evidence that I acquire. Furthermore, I uphold the ideals of the first amendment, and I don't consider the assertions from the post-modern (in this case, from 1970-today) era against Islam enough to refute over one thousand years of accepting it as a religion and its principles. I do not inject my religious bias into the matter. I beleive in freedom of religion and freedom of religious practice for all.

From a historical perspective, denial of liberty to the faction of Islam, even in the case of its dangers sets a dangerous precedent. In Federalist No.10, James Madison describes two methods to curing the remedies of dangerous factions. One was denial of liberty, the other was providing the same opinion to all factions. Madison considered both of these options impossible. If a faction is truly dangerous, our Republican form of government will limit its effects.

 

So you're implying that I'm bending the principles of the Constitution?

If so, then you didn't understand what I was saying or you don't understand the Constitution. I suggest you go back and read my posts in this thread again. I think, perhaps, you are just hearing what you want to hear.

 

How can one part of the Constitution be contrary to the Constitution? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Article 6 section 2 makes it very clear that the Constitution- the entire Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You wish to try to bypass the Constitution by pretending the Bill of Rights is somehow inferior, and that Freedom of Religion is not actually protected, so you can advocate your pogrom against Muslims.

I am always amazed at Americans who claim to be protecting the Constitution while actively advocating that we ignore parts they don't approve of.

Just the same old bigotry we have seen over and over- against Catholics, against Jews, against Mormons, just this time it is against Muslims.

Who will be the target next time?

 

Now, you're just making things up. Nowhere did I say that Sharia law could replace our current law. I merely stated that it would be unconstitutional to "ban Islam" like you are calling for. I don't expect you to understand the difference, though.

 

Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. Your statement allowed me to synthesize, elaborate, and conclude that some people on this thread bend, or interpret the Constitution in a self-interested manner. I haven't looked at your other posts closely enough to make the conclusion that you fit into this description.

 

Have you noticed how this is a plan - "the MB must understand"; IE they dont actually think that way presently and these people WANT THEM to think that way. Can you not see that?

Weren't those people charged with support for terrorism in the form of paychecks to Hamas? Nothing about your little crazy 'jihad conspiracy'. One document does not speak for an entire religious group, let alone the religion. We all know Hamas has some very antisemitic elements for example, but we also know most Muslims aren't antisemitic. Furthermore, on the notion Hamas is a terrorist organization, I fail to see how this description is valid. It uses terrorism, sure, but so does Israel, America - and a crap load of other countries. Hamas wasnt created to be terrorist so it seems illogical to call it a terrorist group simply because it uses it, else we should call the US a 'terrorist state'.

 

EXACTLY. Anyone has the total freedom to rationally and without coercion or unlawful behavior, discuss and propose ideas. This means anyone can propose Islamic revivalism, or Islamism, as a political or social platform where they do so lawfully - just as Christians can do the same with their own ideas, along with Hindus, Sikhs etc etc.

 

Could you elaborate on this?

'hundreds'? LOL Could you give a source for that, which isnt polemical also?

Which polls are that?

Since when was that part of the concept of jihad?

Sure - but why havent they? Why havent they just all come over here and begun a mass slaughter? Why did 9/11 happen in 2001 and not in the 1950s or 1979?

Who said they were gaining power?

Which is?

You have a clue of what you are talking about. Have you ever read a book with a view opposed to yours? I bet not. That's the kind of person you are - totally delusional and self absorbed. I refute your points and you fail to reply. I ask for sources, you never give any. You are clueless.

 

Okay, I guess I just misunderstood what you were saying. It seemed like you were saying that I made a slippery slope statement when I stated the following,

 

No religion should be banned unless it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

 

Please source/link this quote.

I'm going to stand firm on my "there is no either/or; it's both".

Some expanded for the glory of god; others expanded for land and brought the system with them.

Suffice it to say, this

• Religion is oft used this way: religion supports the tyrant who supports the religion in a circle of mutual authoritarianism.
• Christianity, which devotes not one word to the use of violence in the service of God, has been used thusly.
• There are many verses within the Koran that promote the use of violence in the service of allah. To deny this foundational reality fails reason.

Tell me, what is your opinion of the US federal govt supporting/promoting one religion above all others? Any thoughts on that?

Kevin J Murray vs Henry M Paulson, Jr

Funny how people put their head in the sand and pretend that the Constitution is not already being subverted.

Terror is a hot button word.

100 police officers from 9 agencies were required to quell a riot at an amusement park because two Muslim women refused to follow park safety rules regarding headgear on certain rides. A fact they were made aware of prior to entering the park. Terrorism? or strife?

Left to its own devices it, Islam will create strife where it is not the dominant system. The word means submission, the dogma demands submission; tolerance comes with a tax.

Now a question for you. Is that really so very hard to wrap your mind around? I don't know what, if any, religion you may have, but they all entreat adherents to bend to the will of their higher power. Islam is particularly stringent regarding this tenet. Surely you do not deny this.

Special laws against beliefs? I hardly think so.

However, the US is under no mandate to accommodate extra-Constitutional legal codes, especially those which are in conflict with our Constitution or established laws, such as polygamy, the marriage of minor females, gender-based second class citizenry, SCF, etc.

If by "this effect" you mean community strife based on religious division, yes. I'm certainly open to examples of where Islam has fully integrated into other cultures without the dissension and demands. If you can supply them, I will consider them; if you cannot, I request that you reconsider your position.