Trumps proposal for Temp Muslim Ban

I don't want to submit to Muhammad. Muhammad is not a prophet. He is a liar, and a murderer, as well as a pedophile. Anyone who wishes to crucify me & sever my hands and feet for telling the truth about these things is immoral.

So, you agree that slavery is immoral. This means Muhammad & his followers were immoral people for owning slaves.

Funny you go back to 2:190, but you missed 2:191: Disbelief is worse than killing.

Then it follows Fight them until there is no more disbelief

Here's 48:26

That doesn't excuse or have anything to do with the violent command 3 verses later.

I don't believe in angels. That has nothing to do with Allah's command for Muslims to behead unbelievers.

STRIKE THE UNBELIEVERS UPON THE NECK AND STRIKE FROM THEM EVERY FINGERTIP

Fighting is PRESCRIBED FOR YOU

Nice try.

So, ambush and kill the unbelievers unless they made a peace treaty with Muhammad. Right.

So, for example, someone who rejects the Quran and teaches science, evidence, atheism, and reason to Muslims? Someone who spreads the truth that Muhammad is not a prophet?

It doesn't say "If they attack you, fight them until you enslave them."

It says "If they do not follow Allah and Muhammad, fight them until you enslave them."

 

I didn't say you had to submit to Muslims, all I said was that in this part of the Quran Allah is allowing the Muslims to protect themselves if warred against, just like any nation (and especially the US) does. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe and I think calling Mohammed all those things without me telling you what to do is rather disrespectful.

Yes, I believe slavery is immoral. You have to put history in perspective though. At that time it was normal to have slaves and norms and values were completely different. If you're going around saying this, almost every human being living before the 18th century, and Europeans and Americans until the 19th or 20th century were immoral people. Put history into perspective and look at the norms and values during that time.

Disbelief is bad indeed, bad for the person not believing. If you read closely you'll see that Allah doesn't want Muslims to start hostilities and to only defend themselves. Therefore in the line 'fight them until there is no more disbelief' Allah talks about fighting the enemy when attacked. If terrorists attack the USA, they have the right to invade Iraq or Afghanistan to force their democracy there, but the Muslims do not have the right to defend themselves against rebels fighting them?

It actually does. 48:26 reads as following: 'When those who disbelieve had set up in their hearts zealotry, the zealoty of the Age of Ignorance, then Allah sent down his peace and reassurance upon His messenger and upon the believers and imposed on them the word of self-retraint, for they were wortyh of it and meet for it. And Allah is aware of all things.' Zealotry means fanaticism, therefore Allah is talking about people practising any kind of fanaticism. I think people who practise any kind of fanaticism are bad and should be watched closely as fanaticism of any kind always results in very bad things.

Whether you believe in angels or not doesn't matter at all in this. What matters is that striking from them every fingertip is a saying. Please read my explanation again, but careful this time.

Yes, when you are attacked you should fight back, that's exactly what it says in this Sulrah. Isn't that the same thing the Americans or any other folk in the world does? When you are attacked you defend yourself and are prescribed to fight for your safety, security and freedom. Doesn't sound that odd to me.

No, again, you're quoting a small part of what I'm saying. A peace treaty was one of the conditions. As long as someone doesn't disturbs you, attacks you or denies your freedom, you should leave them as they are, believers or non-believers.

I'd like to have you know that almost all the basics our modern science is based on was found by the Muslims. We as Muslims don't deny science at all, we practise it. People are free to practise whatever religion they want or be an atheist, as long as they're not trying to force the Muslims to become an atheist themselves. You wouldn't like it if Muslims would enter your house and force you to become a Muslim either, would you?

This one particular line, without reading the rest of the Sulrah or context does, yes. Again I'd like to invite you to actually read what it said before it so you know what it's about. I'll copy and paste my previous explanation once more so you can revise your statement:
This can, just like 9:5, be explained by reading the rest of the Sulrah. In this Sulrah Allah warns of a great war coming to the Muslims and gives instructions on how they can defend themselves. In this Sulrah it is often said that the Muslims should not kill or fight anyone who doesn’t start fighting them. This is even being said right at the beginning of the Sulrah. 9:29 is therefore obviously talking about disbelievers who attack them. Muslims are being instructed to fight them, only if they are being attacked, and immediately stop if the enemy wants to become Muslim.


What you are basically doing is taking small sentences from the Quran without reading the rest of the Sulrah, therefore you don't know what it's about and make a wrong judgement on Islam. I see you do the same to my explanation. If I explain something you take out 1 sentence or a part of a sentence and attack me on that without talking about the rest of the explanation. I'd like to ask you where all your hatred against Islam comes from, cause I can assure you; we are good people.

Have a nice day and thank you for your attention.

 

Muhammad's conquests across the continent weren't defensive. The subject of the attack in the verses isn't "People who attack you", it's "Unbelievers" or "Disbelievers".

That's because I'm isolating the argument. When you say "Yes, Muhammad was immoral because he owned and took slaves, but a lot of people in history had slaves", I'm focusing on the Muhammad owned slaves part. George Washington owned slaves, he's an immoral piece of shit too.

You may be a good person, from your responses, it would appear you have no thirst for violence. However, ISLAM considers

 

It actually is. Please read the full Sulrah and you'll see Allah is talking about a great war against the Muslims and talks about how they can defend themselves. The reason it is always unbelievers or disbelievers attacking the Muslims is that, during that time, they weren't accepted at all and Muslims wouldn't fight each other.

I'm not saying Mohammed is an immoral person, neither am I saying George Washington is. During that time, everyone had slaves and slavery was normal. I'm sure if you and I had lived during that time, we both would've had slaves aswell. In this time however, with all the things we've learnt, I think slavery doesn't fit anymore and is bad and should always stay abolished.

Thank you for your kind words, I can assure you I have no thirst for violence. I'm a European, I'm white and in my class there's, aside from me, no other Muslim. I'm a regular guy, just like you and I live with people and interact with non-muslims every day without a problem. Islam doesn't practise violence, people do. Every religion, every state, every country has fanatics and bad people in it and you can't blame a religion for it. Some Christians killed and are still killing people, some atheists have killed and are still killing people and some Muslims have killed and are still killing people. If one of them kills however, it doesn't mean the whole religion is bad. If a cult in America kills people it doesn't mean America is bad either.

Because you didn't reply to my replies to your findings in the Quran I assume you agree with me on those points and can actually put them into perspective now? Should you have any more brutal findings you need explained or have any questions in general, feel free to post here or PM me. One word of advice from me: read the full story before drawing conclusions about one incident or line.

Thank you for your attention and have a nice day.

 

I'm no genius and I definitely haven't read all 5 pages of this debate. I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. Clearly I'm a Muslim so maybe I'm biased but what the hell, I should be working right now anyway lol.
Obviously I am against the ban on ALL Muslims being banned. I don't think anyone should be banned from going anywhere, this Earth is for everyone to enjoy no matter what race or creed they belong to. I don't support any militant faction and I detest ISIS. But to think that people would discriminate against me, beat me, throw me out of a country for following a religion, it just fills me with disgust.

I don't like getting into religious debates at all as people just get heated and more hatred is born. People of all cultures have at one point in time acted barbarically but people still evolve mentally and change, society changes and to think in 2016 this kind of hatred and discrimination exists is also sad. What ISIS does is even worse, they are in no way Muslim.

If any of you think ISIS or any of these damn radicals are Muslims, I'm sorry but you are fools. If they really were Muslims, why would they slaughter thousands and thousands of Muslims on top of everyone else? They have probably slaughtered far more Muslims in the countries they occupy than anyone else. To add, all these countries sending in their troops to fight this ISIS are just slaughtering more people. These countries now fighting ISIS were the same ones funding and arming it just like with Al-Qaeda. So you tell me, why close off the people you are making homeless? The people you have sent into poverty, distress and caused so many deaths of.

Genocide is practically occurring in these countries and all these bombings from the more politically and socially advanced countries isn't helping at all, it just adds to the death toll. It does amaze me though how drawn people are by the media, how much they believe yet they don't see below the tip of the iceberg, they make assumptions, hate on over 1.6 Billion people in the world without doing any research. All I'm saying is Muslims are suffering too, it never makes the news, yet somehow people think its ok to block out a whole religion because a TINY minority decides its ok to go and kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people (depending on how accurate all these figures are). Personally I don't believe there are 80-100k ISIS fighters, the numbers just don't add up with the destruction.

It's too easy to say history really does repeat itself when you see stuff like this happen. There have been radicals of every religion, creed or any following across time. Trump has practically the same ideals as Hitler, and I don't say this because every other person has, but he plans to block out 1.6 Billion people, your tell me that's not radical?
How many tens of thousands have died to gun crime in the USA every year? Yet guns are still legal. I'm no great Muslim, but I can personally tell you now, I have never and will never kill in the name of my religion, why? Because I believe in peace, I believe my religion teaches that. Murder is wrong, no matter who's name it is in. ISIS is wrong in what it is doing, the armed forces of all these forces are wrong in what they are doing. Operation Haymaker killed more than 150 civilians, sure its a smaller number but are you telling me that makes it ok? I live happily in the UK, I get along with everyone I meet, I go to college, I enjoy my life, I go out, I play games, I could be sleeping right next to you and you would probably never notice. Hello, I'm a Muslim; not all of us are terrorists.

 

-Historically, we know that Muhammad's battles were offensive & he conquered a large section of territory (which multiplied in size under his successors)
-The verses note the enemy as "Unbelievers" and "Disbelievers" and the condition of peace is submission to Islam
-There are specific verses for taking sex slaves, and extracting payment from conquered peoples, which has absolutely nothing to do with defense

I understand there are many verses that account for defensive combat, but that doesn't mean that Muhammad's commands to Muslims, or his military conquests are.

^This is atrocious. Are you saying that it is morally acceptable for Muhammad to own slaves?

Islam is bad because of the violence it commands its followers to commit aggression & who it considers its prophet, its ideal man. Followers do not change the fundamentals - there have been violent attacks & wars by Buddhists, but Buddhism is built on pacifism.

However, Muslims being commanded by god to slaughter innocent people doesn't seem to help their chances of being non-violent:

You didn't make any points, you just reiterated the word defense over and over, and that Strike the disbelievers on the neck is "just a saying". I'm reading the Quran as it is written.

 

March 13th: Two more attacks were made by Islam today: 34+ dead in Turkey, 16+ dead @ Ivory Coast, death toll total for Islam continues to climb past the 100 million mark.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35798502

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/13/large-explosion-turkey-capital-ankara/81729364/

 

This is definitely more than 2 cents .
Totally agree with this post. +1

 

Where did you get the statistic that under 20% of muslims support ISIS? Even if 10% of muslims support ISIS, that is actually pretty scary seeing how many muslims there are.

 

I'm just going to say here that I've seen a lot of arguments saying that ISIS are not true Muslims. One reason is because they don't follow the teachings of the Koran, or perhaps more specifically, they kill other Muslims. These arguments don't stand.

In the first instance, the Koran requires interpretation, and different peoples interpretation over the same passages will result in different practices. There is more than one denomination of Islam. To say that they are not Muslim because they've misinterpreted the Koran is foolish, because in their perspective, you (the other group of Muslims) have also misinterpreted the Koran and so thus you are not True Muslims. If group x says to group y that they are not Muslims because they've misinterpreted the Koran, then group x is liable to the exact same criticism by group y. It's a flawed argument.

This follows onto my second observation. That because radicals are killing their fellow Muslims, and probably more so than they are non-Muslims(?), then how can they be Muslim? Once again, perhaps they do not believe that those Muslims they are killing are true Muslims. If you say radicals are different to x, then x simultaneously is different to radicals. It descends into a situation of one group saying we're true Muslims, and the other group also saying no, we're true Muslims.

Both arguments fall down in my opinion. They are interpreting the Koran in an honest way. Even if their interpretations differ substantially through lack of teaching, or propaganda, or what not, to say they are not Muslim because they haven't interpreted it correctly is absurd (they would say you haven't interpreted correctly before cutting off your head perhaps). Radicals are Muslims, and the fact that they kill other Muslims is irrelevant. This idea that they aren't Muslims seriously distorts any proper analysis. I'm really getting sick of hearing the same argument over and over again, that these radicals aren't true Muslims and that most Muslims are peaceful. No, these radicals ARE Muslims in every sense of the word, AND most Muslims are peaceful in practice (it is often their underlying ideologies that might be quite radical, but otherwise they tend to act peacefully as at).

Now if your argument that they are not Muslims is more along the lines of they aren't deriving their beliefs from the Koran, then I would agree with you. However, I have yet to see a solid argument and decent evidence that a large portion of radical 'Muslims' do not derive their beliefs from the Koran, or derive their beliefs from places which themselves are derived from the Koran.

 

ISIS defy the teachings Prophet Mohammed therefore they are not muslim regardless of how they interpret the Qur'an.

 

The Islamic State is executing apostate Muslims just like Allah commanded. What do you mean "Defy the teachings of the prophet Mohammed"? The Islamic State follows the Quran as it is written.

 

The Qur'an also contains a substantial portion of teachings from the Prophet Mohammed. So this is a contradiction.

ISIS defy the teachings [from] Prophet Mohammed therefore they are not muslim regardless of how they interpret the [teachings of Prophet Mohammed]. A clear contradiction. Now even if you went on to differentiate Qur'an from non-Qur'an teachings from the Prophet, you would still be prioritizing teachings, and perhaps ISIS priorities Qur'an teachings over non-Qur'an teachings? Once again, the argument doesn't hold. You're just trying to say they aren't Muslim because they reject a small portion of the Prophet's teachings. Assuming that is true (I'm not an Islamic Scholar), they can also just say the other people aren't Muslims because they reject what ISIS regards as the Prophet's teachings. I mean all of this evades the problem of Islam as a whole; the implied argument that Islam can only be interpreted peacefully by true Muslims is nonsense because ISIS clearly interprets some of the teachings non-peacefully. So you try and say ISIS isn't interpreting the teachings (you can't since they clearly are), or that they are interpreting them incorrectly (which gets you to the problem which I've talked about). Saying that most Muslims in practice are peaceful is good and well, and I agree. But justifying that by saying that ISIS aren't Muslims is a totally unacceptable argument, yet for some reason it pervades the whole debate.

 

Absolute truth here. A lot of Trump supporters will forget that Trump was ambivalent and even somewhat supportive of accepting Syrian Islamic invaders some months ago.

As for the shiniest of two turds, it really is, considering you are choosing between Hillary Clinton, and a guy who was donating to Hillary Clinton's campaign 8 years ago. Where is your out?

 

So you want to support a racist who wants to limit 1st amendment rights? Not to mention, he constantly contradicts himself.

For example, encouraging violence during his rallies and then saying later that he doesn't endorse violence. And he says he is self-funding his whole campaign...and he isn't. I could go on...

 

You mean the racist Bernie "White lives don't matter" "White people don't know what poverty is" Sanders?

Legally, his rallies are secret service protected which means it is illegal to protest at them, so protesters can be removed by force.

I agree that he contradicts himself all the time. He's not better than any other politician when it comes to putting a finger in the wind and moving that direction.

 

Wow are you really saying that the black lives matter movement is asserting that white lives don't matter? It's about how African Americans are treated unfairly by our system of law and law enforcement officers. If you don't think minorities are treated unfairly I suggest you actually do some research.

You didn't even touch the topic of Trump being racist or ethnocentric. I mean c'mon he wants to ban all muslims from coming to the U.S., he calls illegal immigrants rapists, his dad was arrested during a kkk rally, he didn't immediately disavow the support of a former kkk leader, once again...I could go on.

Watch this video on Trump...it's from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.



And lastly, it's not fucking illegal to protest even if there is secret service there. That is directly going against the first amendment. Sure, they can remove you from the venue, but you are not breaking any laws by protesting at a rally.

 

I suggest you do your research.



Do all lives matter Senator Sanders? No. BLACK lives matter.

You never provided any proof to respond to.

Islam is not a race or ethnicity.

http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-american-dream/

?...

Trump: "I don't know anything about David Duke, did he endorse me?"

Duke: "I made it really clear [on the radio] that I did not endorse Donald Trump, that I have many differences with him, and that Donald Trump is not endorsing me."

Trump (2000): "Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined – a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party."

Trump's ambivalence is quite the contrast to Hillary Clinton's glowing praise for Democrat KKK members.

Please do because your previous points are quite lacking considering you are going after Trump's dead father.

O wow I didn't know his ancestors were named Drumph wow owned.

Trespass. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want anywhere you want. It means congress can't pass laws restricting freedom of speech.

 

Okay? That actually supports what I just said. The reason he did not say all lives matter is because by saying that you are just avoiding the real issue. The reason people say black lives matter is because they want to point out that african americans' lives matter just as much as everyone else's do. I think everyone can agree that all lives matter. Did Bernie say that white people's lives don't matter? No.

I believe all of the things I said are things Trump actually did...There is extensive media coverage on each of the things I listed, but if that's not enough I have more...

"When Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.

The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did with white candidates, and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being available."

Obviously not. However that doesn't excuse him at all. The majority Middle Eastern people are muslim. By saying he does not want to allow muslims into the country, he is essentially saying that Middle Eastern people or people that practice Islam have less of a right to try and immigrate to this country.

Hahahaha thanks for that. That's actually evidence that we need to reform our immigration laws so that more women don't try to cross the border and get raped. I think you would agree that not all Mexicans are rapist? If you don't agree than I can see why you support Trump...meaning that you are racist. Building a wall is not going to solve that problem

His dad being arrested at a KKK rally and the evidence of discrimination by his company is further support for the idea that Trump is racist. His father raised him...if he was racist would he not pass along those ideas to his son? Instead of denouncing his father for his actions...he lies and says it never happened when there is an actual record of arrest for his father.

Here's another perfect example of how Trump contradicts himself. He doesn't know anything about David Duke? Then why did you just mention a quote from him in 2000 talking about him and then in 2016 he says he knows nothing about him? Even if Duke didn't endorse him, on the news they basically said are you going to disavow the support of a former kkk leader...and Trump says no...not until I do research on him.

Will do.


"At a November campaign rally in Alabama, Trump supporters physically attacked an African-American protester after the man began chanting “Black lives matter.” Video of the incident shows the assailants kicking the man after he has already fallen to the ground.

The following day, Trump implied that the attackers were justified.

“Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”"



Trump’s racial incitement has already inspired hate crimes. Two brothers arrested in Boston last summer for beating up a homeless Latino man cited Trump’s anti-immigrant message when explaining why they did it.

“Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported,” one of the men reportedly told police officers.

Trump did not even bother to distance himself from them. Instead, he suggested that the men were well-intentioned and had simply gotten carried away.

“I will say that people who are following me are very passionate,” Trump said. “They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”"



"When Trump addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition in December, he tried to relate to the crowd by invoking the stereotype of Jews as talented and cunning businesspeople.

“I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” Trump told the crowd, touting his book The Art of the Deal.

“Is there anyone who doesn’t renegotiate deals in this room?” Trump said. “Perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to.”"



Oh...and he doesn't support equal marriage rights AKA gay marriage.

You missed the entire point of the video.

Please provide me with some actual support. It is not trespass because everyone has a right to attend the rally. Once you are there they can kick you out, but it doesn't somehow just become trespassing when you start to protest. We have the right to assemble.

 

I'm going to stop your doublethink right here. So if someone asked Donald Trump if all lives mattered, or if white lives mattered, then he answered "White lives matter", wouldn't that be racist?

Except Bernie. He was specifically asked if all lives matter, but he did not agree.

Unconstitutional.

Yeah. That's because Islamic people worship a murderer, slaveholder, pedophile who commanded them to behead everyone who doesn't worship him. Trump is 100% correct in banning them.

Why doesn't a wall solve that problem?

Trump is racist because his ancestors were racists. Sure man, maybe he's haunted by his father's racist ghost.

So which candidate accepted the support of former KKK members and which one disavowed? Just making sure you are being honest, or if you are going to say Hillary is a racist for praising former KKK members.

Trump is wrong here since people have individual rights and are not guilty of the crimes of their blood. However, if they are involved in supporting the terrorist, then they are a viable target, but Trump didn't seem too concerned about how complicit the family members were in that statement.

Trump is wrong here. He shouldn't imply that anyone should be roughed up any more than it takes to arrest them.

Dude are you pulling this stuff from Huffington Post or something? Faked quotes, are you serious? You skipped entirely over Trump condemning them:

And?

Can you quote Donald Trump being against gay marriage? If he did, let's see if it tops Hillary Clinton's:

No I get it. You think John Oliver & Politifact are credible because you can't discern between a source and blatant propaganda.

If you aren't trespassing, then on what grounds can they kick you out?