Top Menu

Trump, Fox News and Swedish Crime Statistics

Dunce cap on Trump

On Saturday, Trump referred to what seemed to be an alleged terror attack in Sweden the day before. He talked about the U.S. Migration Ban and justified it by mentioning an “incident” in Sweden. But nothing remarkable happened in Sweden that Friday (I am from Sweden). It is more probable that Trump was talking about a TV segment that aired Friday evening on Tucker Carlson (Fox) about “Muslim Migration” to Sweden and alleged exploding “crime rates” in Sweden. 

Fox claims that “Muslims” who migrate to Sweden have increased the crime rate astronomically, and to prove this they interviewed Ami Horowitz. He made a lot of claims about refugees in the short segment while the TV flashed images of Muslims and people rioting. The aim of the claims is to scaremonger; they want to fool people to view immigration as something negative, and dangerous.

I am a Swede that loves the U.S.A. and Ami and Fox News are WRONG!

I will focus on one thing: the claims about crimes in Sweden. When Fox news wants to talk about problems with criminality they often choose Sweden, why not The Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico or the suburbs of New York? (Though they tend to also paint these areas as plagued by a “culture of Black” or “Latino” crime as well)

Sweden surely has problems. Unemployment and alienation among immigrants is a big problem but Sweden is still not as unsafe to live in as the U.S.A.

Lets just look at the statistics that have to do with homicides. Sweden has about 1-1.3 murders per 100,000 inhabitants and the USA has about 5. The U.S. controlled Virgin Islands has 52 murders per 100,000 (56 homicides 2010) and Puerto Rico 18.5 (681 homicides 2014).

Ami Horowitz claims that there are No Go Zones in Sweden where police cannot even enter. No, that is wrong. There are zones with social problems and unemployment among immigrants that RACISTS call No Go Zones. But real “No Go Zones” are the ones found in the USA. Compared to some areas in say Philadelphia and Baltimore (for good reasons such as a history of police brutality and militarization in those places), parts of the racist South, and towns with a legacy of “sundown laws” the Swedish suburbs are VERY calm and peaceful.

Perhaps Ami has never visited the  of USA?

Statistics and Swedish rape

It is difficult to compare statistics between countries. Not all nations define crime in the same way. In Sweden and the USA it is, for example, not a crime to be a homosexual. In nations with laws against homosexuals that “crime” affects the statistics.

The best example of this is the international statistics on rape and sexual assault. I have written about this in a recent article. Sweden has tough laws against rape reports and therefore has many reported cases of rapes in its statistics, whereas Egypt and Mozambique have lousy laws and report few or almost no instances of rape.

As “evidence” for this international statistics are cited. Indeed, according to those statistics a lot of rapes are reported in Sweden: 63,5  rape incidents per 100,000 citizens. The USA with 300 million people has 27. That would lead you to think that the numbers of rapes are skyrocketing but then you look at the figures. Sweden with ten million people has 5,960 rapes, Azerbaijan 16, India only 22,000, Lebanon 19, Mozambique 44! And Saudi Arabia claims that there is almost no rape, (and lash the raped women instead), Egypt has about 100 all in all, Canada 576.

Does this mean that Sweden is unsafe for women, and that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Mozambique are paradise for women?

Of course not, there are big differences between all countries. The first is that what is defined as rape in Mozambique and Saudi Arabia is not the same as in Sweden or Germany and what is legally defined as a rape in USA is not the same as in Sweden.

Mozambique still has the old colonial laws that stated rapists to go unpunished if they marry their victims and stay married for at least five years. Saudi Arabia, well… Lots of women are raped but the legal system doesn’t seem to care about that. Egyptian law is not protecting Egyptian women very well.

The Swedish law considers lots of acts as sexual assault and rape that other countries don’t.

That is why the statistics on homicides is so important. The international laws against homicide are almost the same in all countries. And the statistics show that Sweden is a far more peaceful country than the USA.

To lower crime rates the U.S.A. should INCREASE immigration

As for immigration.

If Donald Trump wants to decrease the rates of criminality in the USA, he should open the borders and bring in more immigrants. If you look at facts, immigrants to the USA have lower rates of crime than people born in the USA.

Many have reported on this fact which is scientifically and statistically confirmed. The New York Times wrote last year;

“In America, as in Europe, anti-immigrant backlashes have often followed episodes in which foreigners are blamed for crimes and other problems. But statistical studies show that in the United States, at least, immigrants are far more law-abiding than natives, regardless of race, class or education.”

Reason magazine wrote;

“This new study bolsters my reporting on the topic back in 2014 which also found lower rates of criminality among immigrants. As I then noted: University of California sociologist Ruben Rumbaut finds, among other things, that the incarceration rate of American-born males between 18 and 39 years of age was five times the rate of foreign-born males, and finds similar conclusions in a survey of other studies on the topic.

Rumbaut and his colleagues have updated their data. From the executive summary of their study:

‘For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime.'”

Lets look at the statistics. I looked at this some years ago and found these excellent charts from one of the studies by Rumbaut. It is statistics that show that 3% of the US population between 18 and 39 was incarcerated in 2000. 3.5% of the U.S. born population and 0.86% of the foreign born population was incarcerated.

Thus: to decrease the crime rates in the U.S.A: increase immigration (and end racist laws and policing practices targeting Black and Brown communities)!

 

The chart above also shows that the USA has far greater problems with criminality than Sweden. The US has 758 incarcerated per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005-2007. Sweden had 77!

It is interesting to see that Trump watches a show that claims that “Muslim” immigrants are behind crime and rape in Sweden and gets so inspired by it that he attacks Sweden the day after. Islamophobia, anyone?

Edited — Garibaldi (2/19), (2/20)

, , , , , ,

  • Income inequality is inevitable when you import millions upon millions of untrained immigrants who don’t have the skill set to make much money.

    I think the importation of many workers is actually a symptom, rather than the cause, of income inequality. We have a very wealthy sliver of elite who are all too happy to greatly increase the labor supply and drive down wages and benefits. But they sliver would exist regardless. Also, not all of the immigrants are low skill. High paying, high tech jobs are going to immigrants too. I worked on an IT team in a large corporate and on a team of 13, I was the only American-born person. One from China, one from Pakistan, all the rest from India. No exaggeration.

    Of course there is an upside to this, in that we get some of the “best and brightest” in what some in India a few years ago called “the brain drain,” meaning they were losing good people to the US. The downside is that when too many people come, we don’t necessarily get the “best and brightest” anymore, and native-born Americans either have to accept very low wages or go without a job. Some people get mad at ANY criticism of immigration policy, but this is simple economic reality.

    There are so many sophisticated means why which this sliver of elite siphons wealth off of the common people, it’s hard to fathom. And it’s too big a topic to reasonably cover here. When I look at our government today being focused mostly on protecting profits, not people, the domestic policy as well as our foreign wars, are more comprehensible. Not pretty. Depressing, but easier to grasp.

    Thank you for your answers regarding Christianity. That’s a very positive and inspiring expression of the faith, bolstered by some lovely passages from the Bible. I’m satisfied with your answer, and so I don’t have additional questions. I do want to draw a parallel as far as image though, because not everyone looking in from the outside would see Christianity that way. Not just people on the receiving en of US foreign policy, which they might associate with Christians (especially due to Zionism), but even in America itself, oddly enough. The negative portrayal of Christians in a lot of popular culture is shocking to me.

    I was trying to watch a movie a while back that didn’t have any disturbing themes so I chose a sci fi about space bugs, thinking that would be innocuous. Yet they had a “Christian” woman on there who went from slightly kooky to crazy and violent. When she talked, people glared at her, an old lady cursed her and everyone nodded, and someone threw a can of vegetables at her head! I found this shocking. In the end they shot her dead. My “innocent” movie wasn’t. I rarely even try to watch Hollywood movies anymore.

    I feel like Islam and Muslims get a bad rap too. Because all the goodness and kindness you’re discussing with regard to Christianity finds expression in Islam too, among Muslims. A different flavor the same spirit. I know this because I know Muslims who are devout, and they are some of the kindest, most generous, loving people I’ve ever met. Truly. Just being among them feels peaceful and serene. They are not the Muslims who usually make TV. Please keep that in mind when you see portrayals in the media. I don’t think religious people generally get a fair shake these days, as secularists increasingly seem to lean anti-theist. I believe this is both earthly and spiritual warfare, and I find myself defending believers, regardless of their affiliation.

    Anyway, it’s good to have a fruitful discussion. There are too few good faith conversations, I think, online these days.

    I’m working on a home renovation project, and I’ve noticed procrastination often takes the form of writing comments here in Disqus. Conversation is more enticing than painting on any given day, but at some point, I have to drag myself back to task.

    It’s been nice talking with you. Thank you for taking the time. Take care. 🙂

  • Dennis

    “It’s not as if with each new administration, there is a clean new slate…”

    True but Rice has been out of office for over 8 years.

    “A lot of problems in America today, I would argue, trace back to income inequality…”

    Income inequality is inevitable when you import millions upon millions of untrained immigrants who don’t have the skill set to make much money. Even then the poor In the USA are often well off by the standards of other countries. Homelessness is an intractable problem which is largely caused because drug addicts and mentally ill are not institutionalized.

    “Consider some of the left who voted for Obama in the sincere hope he would end the wars…”

    Yes. But Obama did win a Nobel Prize! Obama though he had a special understanding of Islam because he grew up for a time in Indonesia with a Muslim step dad. Both the right and the left think that Middle Eastern Muslim society needs to be fixed and can’t resist meddling. Obama thought he had inside information which would give him the right answers to fix those countries.

    “You’re reducing what I told you to my “personal interpretation” but that’s incorrect.

    OK.

    “From a Christian viewpoint, however, if you can bridge the gap between things that are in the Bible and Western secular standards, in whatever way, then it’s possible for Muslims to do the same.”

    I don’t try to bridge the gap. Most Christians believe that God has given us rights which include freedom of speech, freedom to worship God according to our own consciences provided we use religion as a front to plan or commit crimes etc. The present secular society is not traditional American culture but is something which the left has been imported from France called laicite.

    “I really don’t think it makes sense to insist American Muslims are right on board with Muslims in a completely different regional and cultural context.”

    Let’s hope not. Public opinion polls on Western Muslims are concerning.

    “I WISH Islamic doctrine prevented Muslim women from adopting the worst excesses of Western feminism, but evidence suggests otherwise.”

    Ironic isn’t it. My reaction to those women is similar to yours.

    Questions 1 and 2 are related. Fundamentalist Christians might answer the question different than I will. We all end up at about the same place. Many of them believe in Dispensationalism which you are free to look up for yourself. My viewpoint is that God’s thoughts are so much above ours that we are always limited in our understanding of the message God has been sending us. The ancient Jews were quite primitive and didn’t have the scientific understanding that we have now. Therefore God had to deal with them in a very simple way with rules which worked for them at that time but which have no direct application in today’s World. Those rules are still useful for us to study to try to understand the reasons those rules would be applicable in that time.

    The New Covenant was brought to us by Jesus. He taught us to approach morality similar to the way we approach scientific questions with an understanding of first principles and reason. According to Jesus the morality of the Old Testament all flows from two primary laws: Luke 10:25-29

    “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

    He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

    “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

    As you can see, Jesus has derived principles out of the laws of the Old Testament which are not immediately apparent when you read them. According to Jesus, only actions which are motivated by love for God and by love for the other person are moral. Mature Christians are more interested in the guiding principles of behavior rather than by individual rules. If this is confusing, you might be interested in Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning since he has done a great job explaining the difference between a beginner and an expert in morality. I compare moral development to the development of any other skill such as tennis. At the beginning you don’t understand what you are doing and you rely on rote rules. As you progress and become an expert you change the rules to fit your own style. But the expert player who modifies the rules is a better player and can easily beat the beginner.

    ” I though it was odd for Christians to think Jews are chosen over them, and to support their taking land from Palestinian families,…”

    Christians have varying opinions about the Jews. The most Biblical position is that God’s promises to the Jews are eternal just as his promises to the rest of us are eternal. Some Christians may think that the Jews are somehow above them but that is not Biblical. God chose the Jews to minister to the rest of mankind and to be an example of what people could do if they followed God. I don’t think Christians want Palestinians to be ousted from their homes, but the demographic changes in the Middle East are apparently irreversible. Many of the Jews in Israel are immigrants from Muslim lands where their own houses were taken.

    “I’m asking these questions in earnest. As I said before, I don’t venture out to ask online at all.”

    Now that we understand each other better I hope that we can have an enjoyable talk. Most Christians don’t understand their own religion very well so I’m not surprised that you are confused.

    There is one passage which I believe is vital to understanding Christianity and ideal Christian morality.

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16”

    When God asks us to love him and to love others he is asking us to be like him.

    http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

  • I’m not sure what Rice not being here anymore has to do with anything. It’s not as if with each new administration, there is a clean new slate, and all that happened previously simply vanishes from the world. It’s not exclusively democrats who meddle in the affairs of others and start wars. It’s both parties. Obama was responsible of bolstering ISIS under his administration, but as the articles I linked to show, that whole trajectory was set long before he took office.

    It seems to me you have bought heavily into the right/left paradigm, where the left is responsibly for a disproportionate share of what you don’t like. I think it’s more complicated than that. We haven’t even really gotten into income inequality, which now in the US is staggering. A lot of problems in America today, I would argue, trace back to income inequality, yet the gap has gotten more and more pronounced, no matter who is in office.

    Consider some of the left who voted for Obama in the sincere hope he would end the wars, or at least pull back from our aggressive policies in a substantive way. Did he? Not really. There was a still a lot of meddling and bombing going on, and it was pretty much business as usual. I read that more people died in Iraq under Clinton’s time in office than either of the Bush’s. I haven’t verified that absolutely, but he allowed draconian sanctions to stay in place that killed millions, and during his time, he ordered a bombing in Sudan based on false intelligence, and refused to apologize or made reparations. People died at the time, but also kept on dying because it was a pharmaceutical company and they could no longer get enough medicine. It’s true Bush Senior started the war, and Bush Junior started another war in Iraq, but did the democrats really give us some huge policy correction? Not that I noticed.

    Now I asked a guy who was working on my house why he voted for Trump and he said because he’s a working man and he is tired of these establishment politicians handing his money over to the rich. He said he have a reverse Robinhood deal going on, which I thought was a great answer. It certainly wasn’t consistent with the media portrayal of Trump supporters and semi-literate buffoons. But I pointed out to him that Trump himself is a very rich man, not really and “every man” who will understand your plight. He said he gets that but it’s not as if he can vote for someone like himself. He wished he could…just a farmer or a carpenter could be president, but it’s Trump that he can elect and at least he’s not Hilary Clinton, who we know is firmly an establishment politician.

    I at first was pleased with a few things Trump said because he made it sound as if he thought America should be less interventionalist. Stop bombing other places and focus on “Making America Great Again.” The problem is that he isn’t sticking with that, even at this early stage in office. I feel just as anti-war supporters were disappointed by Obama, so will Trump supporters be with his “anti-establishment” presidency that is supposed to boost the common person’s lot.

    Why all this disappointment? Because neither side is going to change things all that much. I don’t think it’s even an option. That’s why I don’t come down too hard on the specific person in office, as if it’s a cult of personality and I “hate Obama” or “hate Trump.” I don’t hate anyone, and I don’t over estimate there ability to change things, even if in their heart of heart they truly want to. I believe it’s quite possible if they really bucked the elites behind the seen, they’d sleep with the fishes.

    This complete lack of faith in the political system, as it’s currently configured, allows me to not become angry with either side, right or left. Do I “hate” Coke or Pepsi? If I hate anything, it’s not having a real choice. I think blaming “the left” (or “the right” for that matter) is a way to not pay attention to who is really pulling the strings.

    You’re reducing what I told you to my “personal interpretation” but that’s incorrect. First because I never said what my personal interpretation is. I gave you a range of views. Also, nothing I wrote is confined to such a narrow space, where it is “personal” rather than at least representing a group of Muslims. I personally believe Islamic social engineering is incompatible with Western secular standards, so I don’t try to prove otherwise. It is based on a different set of ideas at a foundational level.

    From a Christian viewpoint, however, if you can bridge the gap between things that are in the Bible and Western secular standards, in whatever way, then it’s possible for Muslims to do the same. And in fact many do, especially those born and raised in the West, to a remarkable degree. I know this mainly because I actually don’t like to see it happen. I don’t want Muslims, for example, to accept the West’s “anything between consenting adults” mentality with regard to sex, nor the “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law” principle that seems to underpin so much popular culture. If you think Islam is some immovable obstacle, to read MuslimGirl.net and see for yourself what I mean. Check out these articles:

    Why Gay Imams Are Better for Muslim Women
    http://muslimgirl.com/12838/gay-imams-better-muslim-women/

    Practicing Islam in Short Shorts
    http://muslimgirl.com/10572/practicing-islam-short-shorts/

    Here we have Muslim women, some in hijab, spouting this stuff. I WISH Islamic doctrine prevented Muslim women from adopting the worst excesses of Western feminism, but evidence suggests otherwise. You can probably find a hijabi howling about how we need to “smash patriarchy” and eliminate the evils of the “heteronomative gender binary.” Is anyone immune to this degenerate idiocy?

    I really don’t think it makes sense to insist American Muslims are right on board with Muslims in a completely different regional and cultural context. They simply aren’t. And if you want to see evidence Muslims can manage to reform their interpretation and practice to fit with Western secularism–even in its crudest forms–you can certainly find it. Same goes on Twitter, where I see a lot of these hijabis demonstrating their bizarre marriage of Islam and Western pop culture. I find it alarming, and this is what drives me to NOT want the moral decadence and social decay to spread worldwide.

    Anyway, since you brought it up, maybe you can explain something to me, since we’re on the topic. I have heard before about the “New Covenant,” which makes sense, but then it leads to some questions:

    (1) We keep the Old Testament at all? Why can’t you just have the New Testament as your Bible to clear up confusion?
    (2) Why do some Christians seem to use the Old Testament to make their case in some debates if it’s no longer relevant? I’ve seen people point out that if you use the OT against homosexual rights, you should also not be eating bacon and shrimp because it’s all coming from the same scripture. Is that actually true?
    (3) Why did Jesus say he came not to replace the Old Testament to to fulfill it?
    (4) Why do so many Christians support Zionism, which is based on the “Old Covenant” instead of replacement theology which is based on the “New Covenant”?

    I listened to several pastors lay out the case for the New Covenant and criticize the Scofield Reference Bible for injecting Zionist commentary into the dialogue. I read some fairly extensive articles on the topic too, and it sounds compelling to me. I though it was odd for Christians to think Jews are chosen over them, and to support their taking land from Palestinian families, even when they are Christian like themselves.

    They cited passages like this:

    “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:20

    I tried to bring this up to a Christian co-worker, not in a confrontational way but with polite questions, and the reaction I got was ferocious. I didn’t press the matter for exactly the reason you mentioned. I’m not a scholar of the Bible, of course, and I wasn’t going to insist the I know better than he does. I was posing a question with regard to what others who say they are Christian pastors and scholars had said. At least from my view that made more sense.

    So I guess what I’m saying is that I really do think the relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament is confusing. If it were not related to the Zionist enterprise, I don’t think I’d be as concerned with it. But the forcible establishment of Israel has caused a festering problem for decades and is still a problem, Christians support for it is of interest to me. Are you familiar with this topic?

    I’m asking these questions in earnest. As I said before, I don’t venture out to ask online at all. And the rare time I’ve asked in person, I never got satisfying answers. Now that the topic is open, I’m interested in your views.

  • Dennis

    Condoleezza Rice has been out of office for a long time. I don’t know how much the Obama administration was involved in the Arab spring.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the Obama administration armed radicals like ISIS in secret although it would be hard to document. It is well known that they sent weapons into Syria after the civil war had already started. I am well aware of the Saudi involvement although it is more direct in Yemen.

    “I’m talking about a simple side-by-side comparison a literate child can do, which looks at what the text ACTUALLY SAYS. If you are not able to grasp this point…”

    You would have to understand Christianity to understand why that doesn’t work. Christians live under the New Covenant which means that many of those Old Testament (Old Covenant) texts which you quote don’t have any modern application. If you could time travel 3000 years into ancient Israel then your approach would work.

    “I find it interesting that you point out, “The Qu’ran says X” and I go to great lengths to explain, and you go back to what the text actually says, largely ignoring my explanation.”

    That’s not my intention. I accept your response that that is how you personally interpret the Koran. That’s cool. I’ve come across many Muslims who interpret those texts much differently. That’s not so cool.

    Also the Sunni and Shia have different traditions that also makes a difference. Despite the harsh rhetoric coming out of the present regime I get the impression that Shia theology is more compatible with modern society.

  • American leaders actually stated that they were going after Syria, and not just in neocon policy papers. Wikileaks has some details regarding this, but I think the best article is in the New Yorker, called, “The Redirection,” written by Seymour Hersh. It’s not an article to skim, but rather read carefully, contemplating the implications:

    THE REDIRECTION
    In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    What does that mean? They made the choice to destabilize??? If they don’t cooperate with America, then who is it who makes sure they destablize, and by what means?

    The US has not even denied supporting “moderates” in Syria, giving training and arms to fighters who often would up joining ISIS. It’s not a secret that the US has done similar things before. The US helped to create Al Qaeda in order to fight the Soviets, creating a pan-Islamic army. Various regional conflicts used to actually be regional, but now they are subsumed under a global movement. The US also supported MEK, which is interesting since to do so they had to take them off their terror list. There is evidence US also supported Al-Qaeda linked fighters in Libya. The idea of harnessing resistance–and even terrorists groups–to serve Western interests is not new.

    If you really want to know the details of how the US involved, it’s a big topic you can research yourself. Do make sure to find out how the US decision to dismantle the Iraqi army played a role, as well as how plans were facilitated by keeping key leaders together in prison. I found these points interesting, and they pertain not just to Iraq, but also to the situation in Syria. I also would not neglect the role of the Gulf States, as the regime in Saudi Arabia is knee deep in all of this intrigue, with participation also from Qatar and some of the other Gulf States. If you are going to try to piece it together, there is plenty of evidence out there. It would take a very long time for me to construct a case for you, and I’m not going to invest that kind of time, especially since if you’re truly interested, you can do it yourself.

    I didn’t say “all of Africa,” though I think you’ll find the West has meddled in most of Africa, through many different means. Did you even read the article I linked to??? It’s a primer on how this is done, right up to the PRESENT DAY. I’m not going to provide more evidence if it appears you’re not examining what I’ve already given you.

    I don’t know why people perceive this as a “leftist site.” We are neither of the left nor the right, and I don’t even find that binary helpful. I think it’s part of the “divide and rule” game. Anyone can have a say here, left or right and everything in between. The whole point of the site is to draw a broad base concerned with Muslim civil rights. That’s it. We’re not endorsing a particular political or religious view.

    Again, the point I’m making about Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with theology. I’m talking about a simple side-by-side comparison a literate child can do, which looks at what the text ACTUALLY SAYS. If you are not able to grasp this point, I would say there is a psychological blockage, or you just don’t won’t to admit to your double standards. The Christian rebuttal, “we don’t follow our own book anyway” may be related to theology–some apologetics that get your around that–and I’m fine with that. But it doesn’t change the fact you are one very, very shaky ground calling out the Qur’an on things similar to what is written in the Bible.

  • Dennis

    “The US/UK Operation Ajax overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953 to prevent Iran from nationalizing their oil wealth so the Iranians themselves could benefit from it. That’s just one example among many.”

    I agree that the Iranians have a number of legitimate complaints from that era. That is a long time ago. Since the majority of nations in the Middle East have had complete control of their oil resources for many years, the present problems in the Middle East can not be traced back to European or American plunder. The largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, was never colonized by Europe.

    “Wrong. Destroying Iraq created regional chaos…”

    I agree that destroying Saddam Hussein was probably a mistake and withdrawing precipitously was also a mistake. However, the regional chaos was already present before that war. For instance there was a.little war between Iran and Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Then Iraq attacked and overran Kuwait.

    ” …the US helped create ISIS, then went on to train and arm them under the guise of training “moderates” who quickly blended with them.”

    I’ve not heard that one. Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

    “Your understanding of what’s happening is Syria is very superficial. The US and the Gulf States are orchestrating what’s going.”

    Really now. At least you didn’t claim that the Americans are acting all alone while they “orchestrate” the Syrian civil war. In reality, I think Americans have mixed feelings about who they would prefer to win there. I did notice that you didn’t mention the Iranians who just happen to be involved in that conflict.

    “Africa is unstable and impoverished largely due to Western exploitation and meddling.”

    All of Africa? Documentation please? I don’t know about the distant past but recently the French have intervened to prevent mass murder in West Africa. Is that what you are talking about? With the exception of Belgian Congo which was horrifically managed by the king of Belgium, the worst imperialists in Africa by far have been the Arabs from the Middle East. The British worked long and hard to stem the invasion of Africa which supported their slave trade. As I have pointed out, historically the Muslims from the Middle East have been the worst of imperialists both in Europe, Africa and India. Everything can’t be blamed on imperialism. Just as in the Middle East, many of the problems in Africa are self inflicted.

    ” In a nutshell, the US is attempting to establish a matrix of global control, which is already largely in place, where leaders outside of the Western orbit are deposed and replaced with those who serve Western interests at the expense of their own people.”

    There is some truth to this. The US has been a World leader in globalization. Trump is trying to pull back from that somewhat. Where we disagree is whether globalization is a good thing or not. I think it is a good thing not bad like you indicate. Many countries have made huge strides in overcoming poverty through international cooperation and trade.

    You even got around to Halliburton. Good for you.

    “It is the elite in America controlling things…”

    To a large extent, I agree with you, only I call them leftists. When I first started posting here I thought this was a leftist site.

    “If you want to go on believing that the problem is Islam, go ahead.”

    I think Islam is a serious problem but I blame the leftists most of all.

    You haven’t studied Christian theology so it makes it difficult when you quote the Bible to support a point. That is understandable.

  • Have the Europeans or Americans plundered the Middle East?

    Yes. Learn some history. For example, Iran doesn’t just “have a beef” from 100 years ago. The US/UK Operation Ajax overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953 to prevent Iran from nationalizing their oil wealth so the Iranians themselves could benefit from it. That’s just one example. ]

    Unfortunately the local people have done a good job of decimating themselves.

    Wrong. Destroying Iraq created regional chaos, and the US helped created ISIS, then went on to train and arm them under the guise of training “moderates” who quickly blended with them. Your understanding of what’s happening is Syria is very superficial.

    As for refugees coming from North Africa and the Middle East, not only Syria, the US wrecked Iraq and Libya, with far-reaching consequences. Africa is unstable and impoverished largely due to Western exploitation and meddling. I wrote an article that describe how the French not only USED to steal from West Africa but how they have concocted a sophisticated scheme to continue the theft which persists to this day:

    Bleeding Africa: A Half Century of the Françafrique
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/03/bleeding-africa-a-half-century-of-the-francafrique/

    You simply have no idea what’s happening in the world.

    I don’t have an in-depth knowledge nor much interest in Christian theology. I never tried to delve into it too much. Do you want to know how many times I have taken your approach and confronted Christians about their religion? Zero. I have never done that, and I don’t plan to. I can’t imagine a scenario where I would pick out some parts of the bible and go confront Jews and Christians, demanding an explanation and acting as if I’m an expert and insulting them in the process. I don’t behave in this manner.

    You came here not only criticizing Islamic doctrine, but insulting Islam and Muslims at every turn. Theology matters NOT AT ALL with regard to the point I made, which is that the Bible is full of things similar to what you criticized in the Qur’an. That’s a simple, observable reality. If we put the scripture side-by-side and looked at the issues you have brought up here, we would see that you are throwing stones from your glass house.

    Returning to world events, you know very little about how the world really works. So the conclusions you draw are faulty I can’t educate you an entire body of knowledge in disqus comments. In a nutshell, the US is attempting to establish a matrix of global control, which is already largely in place, where leaders outside of the Western orbit are deposed and replaced with those who serve Western interests at the expense of their own people. This is the motive behind “regime change,” and the whole process was spelled out in pretty good detail by the neocons. People don’t want to have their governments overturned and puppets installed who will serve America at their expense, obviously.

    So the people in the target countries are fighting back, resisting this plot. That’s what you’re really seeing. If the American government told the American people, “we’re going to use your national treasure and your friends and family in the armed forces to protect and expand profits for companies like Halliburton,” people would resist. So instead you are told we’re going on an altruistic mission to give people “freedom and democracy.” Or we’re going over their to take away their big, scary weapons which turned out not to exist. Or we’re going over their because Muslims hate our freedom, or whatever other ever-changing cover story they need to carry out their real agenda.

    They take advantage of good, decent people who would never imagine what they’re really up to–which is why I’m careful not to blame the ordinary people. It is the elite in America controlling things, victimizing the common American people as well as people in far away lands. You’re seeing what you’re seeing in the world because the people really running things care about their interests, not yours.

    It’s true that not all European countries that take the fallout are directly involved in this behavior. They are not. In fact some of them are helping solve a refugee crisis they didn’t create because they are good, kind, welcoming people. This is why I try to blame the destructive behavior not the “The West” but on the “Western imperial powers.” Because not all of the West has imperial ambitions. But those who do are making a mess of the world.

    If you want to go on believing that the problem is Islam, go ahead. I’m only going to work so hard to wake you up. In the end, it makes little difference what you think anyway, because your mechanism for change is voting and that never really changes any of this. Whether you blame Islam, blame the elites hiding behind the curtain, or you blame the Mad Hatter, your role in the grand scheme stays the same.

  • Dennis

    “What I’ve said repeatedly is that it’s shortsighted and foolish to decimate and plunder other people’s lands, creating chaos and streams of refugees, and then complaining there are too many refugees.”

    OK Lets unwrap this statement.
    1. Have the Europeans or Americans plundered the Middle East?
    NO. Even if they wanted to plunder the Middle East it is unclear what they would want other than oil. The primary oil producer in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia which has been a sovereign nation in some capacity ever since the Ottoman Empire collapsed. The Saudis sell oil into the international markets at market prices. If anything the Saudis have been doing the plundering by manipulating the oil markets to their advantage. The Iranians have a beef with the British from 100 years ago. Those who opposed the Shaw blamed the British for his rule. After the overthrow of the Shaw a number of Iranians immigrated but they have settled in nicely and not caused any problems. So no plunder has nothing to do with anything.
    2. Decimating the local people?
    Unfortunately the local people have done a good job of decimating themselves.
    The USA has certainly not supported the Assad regime which is receiving strong support from Iran and to a lesser degree from Russia. The Europeans also don’t seem to be much involved.

    A large percent of the refugees are economic refugees from North Africa and other Middle East lands which have nothing to do with the civil war in Syria.

    “I don’t know how seriously I can take your accusations of “rank hypocrisy” when you have such obvious double standards when it comes to your scriptures vs those of others you criticize.”

    I’m not sure what you are referring to. Islam has to be judged by what Muslims derive from their holy books just as Christianity has to judged by what Christians derive from their holy books. The fact that you don’t understand Christian theology is irrelevant.

  • This site claims that anyone who opposes unlimited Muslim immigration is a loon.

    Where did we say that? I haven’t said any such thing. What I’ve said repeatedly is that it’s shortsighted and foolish to decimate and plunder other people’s lands, creating chaos and streams of refugees, and then complaining there are too many refugees.

    It’s your leaders starting the wars and setting the immigration policies. Why don’t you just use your much-vaunted democracy to vote the bums out? Or does that not work?

    The fact that so many Muslims, including the folks at this site, defend the death penalty for those who leave Islam…

    This site doesn’t endorse specific methods of engagements, nor specific rulings. I explained a range of opinion, which included the opinion that there is no earthly penalty for either blasphemy or apostasy. You’re still wording this in a way that’s misleading, which demonstrates once again that nuance is completely lost on you.

    I don’t know how seriously I can take you accusations of “rank hypocrisy” when you have such obvious double standards when it comes to your scriptures vs those of others you criticize.

    Take care, Dennis. Thanks for stopping by.

  • Dennis

    Thanks, that’s all I need to know.

    Somehow, I’m not surprised by your answer.

    Unfortunately a high percent of Muslims have no interest in human freedom nor do they support the civil rights as defined by the UN charter of Human Rights.
    The leftists who champion unlimited Muslim immigration into Western countries claim to champion human civil rights, but obviously that is nothing but rank hypocrisy.

    This site claims that anyone who opposes unlimited Muslim immigration is a loon. In other words there is supposedly no rational reason to oppose unlimited Muslim immigration into countries in which Islam is not dominant. The fact that so many Muslims, including the folks at this site, defend the death penalty for those who leave Islam shows that Islam is not compatible with Western Democracy.

  • About a “ritual” held in America:

    Daniels’ ritual incorporates a mix of occult practices designed to corrupt and desanctify a statue of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The statue is placed within a Solomonic triangle, a tool of occultism. A pig’s heart is placed within the statue and is consumed after the likeness of Mary is smashed. Burned pages from the Quran and menstrual blood were also reportedly part of the ritual.
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/u-s-alarm-unprecedented-demonic-outpouring/#gdW2Z4ulGME3twYY.99

    Try that filthy, degenerate evil in a Muslim-majority country and see what happens. If you want that in your country, go for it. But if you think you’re going to impose these “values” on countries where Muslims are a majority, think again. Some people recognize that freedom needs to be balanced against some reasonable constraints. If satanic freaks knew that while it it is nearly impossible to be sentenced to death for this disgraceful public behavior, they would think twice. This is disgusting beyond belief, and if Americans int he 1950s heard tell of such depravity, they’d have rioted in the streets.

    The evil is on the march because of the West’s weird obsession with unbridled “freedom.” That’s fine for them, but other people don’t have to follow that path. Not everyone thinks individual freedom is on a par with God Himself in terms of importance. And the West doesn’t get to dictate their priorities.

    To you your culture and values, and to Muslims, theirs. Again, that’s why we have separate countries.

    Meanwhile check out this creepy video regarding “After School Satan.” Thank Satan American school kids get to be poisoned by this filth:

    https://youtu.be/b48-SBYbahQ

  • How often do they actually impose and carry out the death penalty for apostasy? That isn’t common. And it still isn’t the fault of Muslims living in America, who have no control over what other countries are doing.

    I have explained to you already, in great detail, that Islamic law preserves the prescribed social order. In the West where there is no penalty for blasphemy or apostasy, you get thing like “Piss Christ” and public satanic rituals. Muslims aren’t going to put up with that nonsense. The standard for actually convicting and sentencing is very high, and there are numerous examples of the Prophet trying to deter people from make public statements that would get them into trouble, and letting them go even when they did.

    Historically if even ONE Muslim vouched for an accused apostate, the punishment was waved. The idea is not to go around attacking people for mere unbelief. It’s to prevent the degeneracy and disrespect for God we see in the West.

    As I said before, Muslims don’t need your approval. They have sovereign nations where they make laws that suit them. Looking into American society, and its “After School Satan” programs, probably helps reassure Muslims their laws are quite necessary.

    I’m not defensive and I’m not denying anything. Please show me where I denied that some Muslims advocate the death penalty for apostasy. You won’t be able to because I haven’t. What I said is there is a RANGE OF OPINION on the matter, and that’s true. I truly don’t care whether or not you like or approve of Islam, so I have no reason to be defensive. I’m giving you information.

    Again, a straw man. I never said that Christians are still following what their Bible says. I only pointed out that is what the Bible says. I have to say this idea of a religion based on a book you don’t follow seems peculiar to me. I wouldn’t subscribe to such a religion. If I have a book I’m not going to bother to follow, then I don’t need the book. Nor the religion. No wonder Christianity has lost so much of its moral force in the West. “Here’s our book which says a lot of stuff we don’t actually believe or practice” isn’t the stuff of great recruitment brochures.

  • Dennis

    I’m not sure what you mean – my ignorance. I’m referring to information which is on the public record and is well documented. One is and article by Pew Research from 2016 about which Muslim countries impose the death penalty for apostasy. I invite anyone who wishes to check out my ignorance to research the information for themselves.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

    I’m curious about why you are so defensive and that you would try to deny the obvious? There is a good doctrinal argument for those Muslims who are genuinely interested in bucking the trend and who wish to bring Islam into the realm of religious freedom. This next link has an excellent discussion on the issue.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos3.htm

    So far as the Bible is concerned, Christians have debated a great deal about religious freedom and the role it should play in society. The best discussion on the issue which I have read is by the philosopher John Locke who maintains that religious people have the right to practice their religions freely provided what they do in the place of worship is legal if done in the public sphere. At Vatican II the Roman Catholic church came out with a powerful theological argument for religious freedom. If you are interested in the Christian theological basis for religious freedom you might want to look up statement by the Catholic church which includes information about Vatican II.

  • What I do know is that Jews have been exterminated or almost exterminated in almost every Islamic country in the World.

    The only attempt to exterminate Jews was the Holocaust and that was in the heart of Christian Europe.

    The Christian population in many Islamic lands is now following the Jews into extinction.

    Thanks to the Western imperialists themselves. Centuries-old Jewish communities were destroyed by the creation of Israel. Christians lived side by side with Muslims since the dawn of Islam. The creation of Israel and latter aggression against Lebanon has caused Christians to flee, as has the disastrous Iraq war and chaos in Syria. All trace back to Western meddling and criminality.

    If Muslims were really trying to “exterminate” the Christians and Jews among them, they could have managed that a long time ago. The very fact they still existed after 1400 as small minority communities disputes your claim through common sense.

    You also need to understand there is no such things as “Islamic” terror. Islamic doctrine doesn’t permit vigilantism and attacks on non-combatants. Also the root cause of Muslim terrorism is UNJUST FOREIGN POLICY. You are being lied to, and you should care about that. Americans should have a say in whether or not they want their government to keep attacking other countries to protect corporate profits, or if they want to put a stop to it and protect their own people. Priorities.

    Politicians and pundits pretend otherwise, but the FBI and CIA has acknowledged the foreign policy link:

    U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS ARE BIGGEST MOTIVATION FOR HOMEGROWN TERRORISTS, FBI STUDY FINDS
    https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/us-military-operations-are-biggest-motivation-for-homegrown-terrorists-fbi-study-finds/

    Ask yourself a question. If your government KNOWS our military adventures are the root cause, why do you and so many others not know that? Who is hiding this information from you and why?

  • You don’t know what you’re talking about! Muslims are not killed simply for leaving their religion. You can’t reasonably evaluate something you don’t understand. But in any case, if you want to go one being ignorant, putting your ignorance on display, that’s up to you.

    Do you know that the Bible says about apostasy?

    13:6 If–your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul–entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” which you have not known–not you, nor your fathers;

    13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

    13:8 You shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him:

    13:9 But you must surely kill him; your hand must be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

    13:10 And you must stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God.

    (Deuteronomy, 13:6-10).

    Fathima Bary Needs to Read Her Bible; Final Word on Islam and Apostasy
    There are of course many other Biblical verses in the same vein, such as 2 Chronicles 15:13 which reads: “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”
    http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/apostasy/

    As far as doctrine, you’re throwing stones from a glass house. And before you wiggle out by telling me Christians don’t actually do this, neither do Muslims on any grand scale. Because the standards for being convicted of apostasy are deliberately set so high, it’s nearly impossible, and that is by design.

    especially since Western Imperialism has been much less destructive to the native populations than Muslim imperialism.

    That’s a false statement. First because there isn’t one overarching narrative that describes all prior imperialism in two discreet categories, such as “Western” and “Muslim.” For a meaningful analysis, it would have to broken down. But Western countries as a general rule “colonized” as in maintained a presence quite separate from the natives, and drained the resources to enrich their homelands elsewhere. Muslims generally lived AMONG the people and build the riches with them. Muslims left Spain at the time very wealthy and a cultural hub. Even to today, the magnificent of Alhambra is Spain’s among Spain’s top tourist attractions. When the Muslims ruled India, they also world class architecture, including the Taj Mahal. When the British took over, they drained India’s wealth and deliberately hobbled local industries, such as textiles.

    No one has clean hands historically. If we were to take examples from the last 3,000 years of history, we would find people doing good and bad things on “both sides,” assuming this “West vs. Muslims” model. But to imply that Muslims were more destructive simply doesn’t reflect history reality.

    I don’t think Bush and Obama thought they were helping anyone. That is the cover story told to the public. If it were true, the US wouldn’t have stopped Iraq from establishing an economy to help it’s own people, stealing the wealth instead:

    How the US got its neoliberal way in Iraq
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI01Ak01.html

    US foreign policy is about protecting corporate profits, not protecting or helping people.

    If the West gets out and stay out, the people in the region will gradually take back their own destiny. You obviously didn’t read the book I recommended. Muslims has created and maintained some of the most glorious civilizations in history. And if not, it’s better to be free, having dates in the desert, than it is to be humiliated under the Western boot.

    Muslims in their own countries don’t need you, and most of them don’t want your influence. Your leaders should focus on YOUR problems, needs and interests and stop trying to distract you with nonsense about how “Saudi women aren’t allow to drive.” Saudi women can handle things on their own.

    Saying to people, “I measured your society according to MY yardstick and it didn’t fare well” isn’t of much consequence. What if Muslims said that to you? “We peered into the US, measured your society according to OUR yardstick, and you guys have it all wrong! Let us help!” I don’t think you would be impressed by that or really care too much, nor would you want their help. Put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.

    You can say and think whatever you like, of course, but just don’t think that everyone in the world is in awe of America and agrees that it’s the best, or that they really care what you think, anymore than you care what they think. Otherwise it just comes off as arrogant and causes more friction. We have established SEPARATE COUNTRIES because we don’t agree on the social and economic order, and now we can make our OWN countries how we want. You don’t want Muslims trying to remake your country in their image, so I’m sure you can understand other side of that coin.

    In the same vein, there is no need for Muslims to justify their religion to non-Muslims, to appease and grovel and seek approval. If you don’t like Islam, don’t become a Muslim. It’s that simple.

  • Dennis

    “However, they exist. Some of your criticism of the Qur’an had to do with why God would use a particular wording.”

    Christians vary widely on how they view inspiration. There are still some who believe in verbal inspiration as you describe but most Christians believe that although the Bible is inspired it is expressed in the words of humans not directly dictated by God. For that reason they are more concerned with the overall picture rather than the specific wording.

    I agree with you that practitioners in any religion should have the right to interpret their own holy books without outsiders telling them what they should believe. The only reason I cite verses in the Koran or hadiths in a certain way is because that is how I’ve seen Muslims use them.

  • I’m not claiming to know much about Christian theology. The point I’m making doesn’t require a deep understanding–it’s very straightforward.

    Again, I’m not talking about whether or not Christians APPLY those passages. I accept that the vast majority today DO NOT.

    However, they exist. Some of your criticism of the Qur’an had to do with why God would use a particular wording. Why then would God put something like this in the Bible? Why is it there??? It’s there, and you didn’t deny that. So if I say, “the Bible contains some things that are similar to what you criticized in the Qur’an,” that isn’t dependent on HOW EITHER RELIGION IS PRACTICED. That is a separate matter, which I’ve already explained, using a numbered list in a previous comment.

    The whole point of expressly stating that it’s a “center of gravity” position. That means it is uncontroversial across major scholars and schools of thought, no only now, but historically. You can read commentary and discover for yourself. Or not. Whatever pleases you.

  • I didn’t say it was a moral argument. It’s a logical argument I used to illustrate a point. I said it’s possible to hold those two views simultaneously, and since that’s the case, they are not “the same.”

    I see no evidence you have a deep understanding of the doctrine, context, history, rulings, and controversies with regard to apostasy. Therefore I don’t see you have being in a position to determine whether the Muslim position is “moral” or not. Especially since there is no single Muslim position on the matter.

    Muslims are entitled to their civil rights, which are not predicated on any particular set of beliefs. This is the same for all citizens, who is permitted to *think* whatever they want so long as they abide by the law. Also, rights at an individual level are not parsed by group opinion. You have no idea what a given Muslim thinks or feels, and yet somehow their rights should be in question because of what other Muslims think? And you think you’re a champion of “free thought”? It sounds like you’re dangerous close to promoting a thought policy mentality toward Muslims.

    To say “they” are doing x and so “they” shouldn’t get y is a type of collective guilt and punishment, which is a serious problem in the world today. I shudder to think of how many people have been injured and killed based on this sort of atavistic tribalism.

    ow do you know Muslims “show very little concern about the victims” and “a great deal about possible blowback on them”? How is it you measure these things? Obviously it’s possible to BOTH care about the victims AND not want to suffer a backlash. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

    I’ve seen a great number of statements since 9/11 like “Muslims don’t do enough to condemn terrorism.” What constitutes “enough”? It’s vague and can’t be proven nor disproven, but since it isn’t usually scrutinized, it has the desired impact on the target audience. Even if dozens of Muslim organizations and thousands, or even millions, of Muslim actually do condemn terrorism. There is no “enough” because it isn’t a defined quantity.

    Your comment about throat slitting is simply ridiculous, and indicates to me that your take your impressions of Muslims from hate sites. Muslims constantly debate everything, and manage to disagree peacefully. The idea that Muslims are subhuman lunatics who lop off your head at the first slight is better suited to comic books than a serious discussion about the real world.

    I don’t know what you’re defining as a “failed state,” but the Muslim-majority countries in the worst shape were not destroyed by Islam, but rather Western imperial aggression. Iraq is one example. The West needs to leave other people alone, and if their countries then sink or float, that’s up to them, not you. Countries don’t improve by being wrecked and plundered, and then blamed for being wrecked and plundered!

    This last paragraph confirms you don’t have a basic grasp of how apostasy is treated in Islamic law. It isn’t about “murder” at all. If someone were to, for example, stone someone in the street for saying he or she left Islam, that would be AGAINST Islamic doctrine, period. There is no school that accepts vigilantism. I told you before Islamic law is nuanced, and I went to the trouble of giving you a detailed example. Yet you keep saying the same misleading, facile kinds of things. I don’t see a point in explaining to you in detail with regard to this particular matter, because when the overarching concept is not within your grasp–or it is but you’re not willing to acknowledge it–then further explanation is pointless, and I won’t waste my time.

    The bottom line is that the American legal system is secure. There is no “threat” of Muslims imposing Sharia here. As I said they are (1) about 1% of the population (2) are not even trying to impose Sharia (3) couldn’t if they wanted to. I find it amazing an idea so absurd has gained any traction at all, and if makes me worry about the critical thinking skills and sanity of Americans. If the Muslims were so incredibly powerful, they’d liberate Palestine and kick America out of the Middle East. Since Muslims in their current state are not even able to recapture their OWN LANDS thousands of miles away, how can it possibly be rational to think they will take over the most powerful country on the planet, where they are tiny fraction of the population?

    Think. Especially if you’re going to drink anti-Islam propaganda. You need to put your filer on and ask yourself, “Does this even make sense?” Some of it is just ridiculous.

  • Dennis

    I’m having trouble keeping up with the various threads – so I’ll start here

    “It is possible to believe:
    (1) Islamic law should apply in an Islamic state, including laws that punish apostasy.
    (2) Islamic law should not apply outside an Islamic state.”

    That is not a moral argument but unfortunately it is what I expected. It is amazing how interested Muslims are in freedom and human rights when they are in the minority. That strategy is extremely self serving for Islam since it benefits Muslims at the expense of other people. Unfortunately, that self serving attitude by Muslims ends up hurting everyone including especially Muslims themselves who often exist in failed states.

    “The highest law in the land is the Constitution. Muslims make up about 1% of the population, and they aren’t even trying to impose Sharia.”

    Muslims are already having a negative impact on our country. They count on the generosity and goodness of the kaffirs but the goodness only flows one direction. After radical Muslims commit acts of violence against innocent people the rest of the Muslims in our country show very little concern about the victims and a great deal about any possible blow back on them. I realize that Muslims may call each other brother and sister but that comrade comes at a high price since the same people who call you brother or sister today will slit your throat tomorrow if you do something which they don’t like such as decide that Islam is wrong. That same selfishness bleeds over into the umma and leads to failed states which are distressingly common in Islam.

    When a religion is willing to murder people who decide that the religion is not true and decide to leave it, that has a devastating spiritual effect on everyone involved including the Muslims who commit the murders since it hardens their hearts against God’s love.

  • Yes, there is a difference, and I can illustrate that easily.

    It is possible to believe:
    (1) Islamic law should apply in an Islamic state, including laws that punish apostasy.
    (2) Islamic law should not apply outside an Islamic state.

    If it is the same thing, then I wouldn’t be able to hold these beliefs simultaneously. They are related, but not the same. You’re conflating issues.

    Instead of getting bogged down in all this, the point is that you don’t want Sharia imposed on your country. if you live in America, for example, you don’t want Sharia imposed on America. To me, that can stand on its own, without delving into exactly WHY you don’t want Sharia, such the possibility of punishments for apostasy.

    It’s understandable you don’t want foreign law imposed on you. I can fully appreciate that. But there is zero chance Muslims will impose Sharia on America. The highest law in the land is the Constitution. Muslims make up about 1% of the population, and they aren’t even trying to impose Sharia.

    Furthermore, ALL OF THE MUSLIMS in the world put together are unable to liberate the tiny, five-mile wide Gaza Strip from the tiny nation of Israel. Yet somehow they are going to take over America and impose Shariah? Speaking of Israel, that country already has Sharia courts, which they inherited from the Ottomans. It hasn’t taken over there, despite the fact a much larger share of the population is Muslim.

    Anyone who is afraid of a Sharia takeover in America (1) probably failed civics class (2) is possibly suffering from paranoia.

Powered by Loon Watchers