Sure; the Islamic religion itself teaches its adherents to make Hijrah, emigrate from non-Muslim societies to Muslim societies. The only caveat is that White European countries like Russia have to stop bombing those Muslim countries thus preventing the creation of refugee crises. If Europe and America simply stopped interfering and involving themselves in Middle Eastern affairs there would be no clash but mutual peaceful coexistence between the 2 different civilizations.
Except there's nothing in the Qur'an that commands Muslims to live in peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims.
O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. (Sura 49:13) But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah (Sura 8:61) Jesus said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew ch.10 v.34)
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Muslims often seem to be verbal pacifists. I rarely see them argue their case in public view. The only ones we hear from seem to be ones with guns on the other side of the world. In america speaking your case and doing it for everyone to hear and doing it again and again is how you make change. Not only can you not rely on the left to defend your case but the left have forgotten the art of debate and are therefore incapable of bringing rationalization to the unreasonable and enlightenment to the unenlightened.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (Bible; 1 Samuel 15:3) Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:9) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me. (Luke 19:27)
Here's more: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy themthe Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusitesas the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy chapter 20:10-1 1. What's worse? Forced to pay Jizya (tribute) or forced labor? 2. Bible says to take women and children as "plunder" 3. Bible says to not leave alive anything that breathes when you conquer
The Chinese and Indians in America are not disempowered. They arrived with little, yet have gone from strength to strength. They understand the benefits and privilege of being in a rich, non-racist, western nation, and they make the most of it. While there are non-white migrants making the white folk look bad, you have zero argument. ZERO. Trump is referring to the late 20thC, when racism was at an all time low, and your country was thriving. The hackneyed and infantile device of claiming he's referring to the 1950's is just that, hackneyed and infantile. The only people stuck in the 50's are Progressives. All their 'battles' were fought and won by 1980. Progressives ignore all the progress made in the past 60 years, as if it didn't happen. They're so wedded to the idea that it's still 1950 in America, that they've actually turned the clock back and reinstated racism.
My purpose is not to prove that the Bible is bad. I respect the Bible. My purpose is only to show the hypocrisy of those Christians who attack the Qur'an as a book of violence, when the violence advocated in the Bible is a thousands times "worse" (by their own standards). Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Historically they took inspiration from some of these verses during periods of Christian militancy such as the Crusades. Christian monks had a tradition of "sanctified violence" during the Byzantine period, which in fact influenced the Islamic concept of Jihad. Read Sanctified Violence: Monotheist Militancy as the Tie That Bound Christian Rome and Islam by Thomas Sizgorich published by Oxford University Press. Many of the early Mujahideen in Islam were in fact Christian monks who converted. "A Syriac Christian apologetic text written in the later eighth or early ninth century, for example, praises Muhammad for his willingness to use violence in the service of the one God of Abraham. 'Who will not praise, honor, and exalt the one who not only fought for God in words, but showed also his zeal for him with the sword?" The Byzantine Roman emperors who spread Christianity by the sword were praised by the Christian clergy and theologians; for putting an end to idolatry and doing battle in God's name against infidels. The Christian monk today may evoke an image of a harmless ascetic with a shaved head living in a monastery. But there were many Christian monks who understood the concept of "sanctified violence"; the intimate relation between violence and spirituality. These warrior monks are what influenced Islam's own concept of Jihad, since Islam doesn't have a concept of monasticism, it substituted the celibate monastic lifestyle with going into the path of God to do war with idol-worshipers. So I am only quoting these Christian texts not to disprove of them, but to demonstrate to Christians and others that their conception of violence for religious reasons being inherently immoral and evil to be incorrect. I believe that violence is many times justified and praiseworthy though with many conditions. It's a complicated subject which I don't want to dwell too much on here. I regard the idea of religion having to be pacifist and non-violent as wrongheaded and not truly understanding the nature and power of monotheistic religion
It's not surprising that the immigrants who come from Asia happen to be the cream of the apple in their countries. To immigrate to the U.S. is not a light matter; it's quite costly and the people who come to America are already highly educated, or come from rich families who can afford to study here. By contrast, the migrants who came from Mexico and Central America came to be cheap labor. Most of the successful Chinese and Indian immigrants in the U.S. are relatively recent arrivals. They are not the descendants of those Chinese who came to be railway workers in the 19th century, and even if some of them are that was around the same time the shackles were being removed from Black slaves. Racism in America is like a pyramid. Blacks are at rock bottom and treated the worst, followed by Mexicans and Indigenous people, then Asians and Indian immigrants, and finally White people at the top.
You'll have to explain racism. Racism is the idea that ones race is inherently superior but you seem to be using it differently. Are you meaning inequality or lack of equal opportunity?
And this is from exactly what revisionist history comic book? Don't worry, you're going to get the war you want. PS: I really want to hear about the LMAO "mother ship."
Everybody thinks that. Everybody believes the nation is faced with important issues. But the political winds of the nation ebb and flow. You take the wins you can get, and you take the losses as well, waiting for a time when the political winds blow your way again. That's just how reality is. But you don't put on a mask and terrorize people. These black-masked people in the street remind me of another well-known masked organization. They're really no better than the KKK.
Thats a different issue though. You were initially talking about having minority parties and individuals to directly represent minorities (and by definition, not represent anyone else). Youre now talking about the racial balance in national politics as a whole. No Congressperson and certainly no Senator can possibly represent only one racial group every constituency will be mixed to some extent and race is just one of countless possible measures you could seek to be reflected. If anything, your desire to only have people represented by their own racial group can only serve to keep down that overall representation because by that argument, the larger constituencies could only be represented by someone of the majority race. Thats why I (like many others) argue against this idea of direct racial representation (in either direction) and instead focus on representatives truly seeking to understand and represent all of their constituents (and indeed others beyond who might be impacted by their decisions) regardless of race, creed, colour, gender, religion, nationality or any other characteristic humans could be divided on. Only then can members of minorities rise to power despite their background and help form pluralistic governments that then include people with the wider understanding of minorities that you desire. I dont see why you need to make this so much about the Democrats or the left or than a pathological need to create unnecessary divisions. Theyre not your enemy, certainly not any more than any other political party. And if they are the enemy on this basis, arent they as much the enemy of whites as well, or is it only minorities who should have their actual needs and desires represented while whites should be left to suffer under the self-interests of corrupt politicians? Yes, there are lots of differences. That doesnt mean Im incapable of understanding America (just as you have to understand Britain to recognise the differences in the first place). Im more than happy to be corrected on specifics, I object to simply being told that I cant be right simply because I cant understand. I do deny that Sunnis and Shiites have different economic and political interests. I deny that Iraqis and Americans have different economic and political interests. I deny that any human being on the planet has different economic and political interests to any other. All sorts of specifics can be different but they all boil down to the same kind of fundamental wants and needs. We all want to be safe and secure. We all want to support and care for ourselves and our families. We all want to be happy. After all, youve still not been able to identify any specific need of representation that minorities have that nobody else does and youve not identified any actual economic or political interest that applies to everyone in any defined group but to nobody outside it. You continue to assert all of these differences but that just makes you sound like all the people who argue from the opposite direction. Because ultimately, even they want the same things as you. The only disagreement is how best to get there.
It's a problem with the system which is based on geographic representation and "first past the post" system which is highly detrimental to true, popular democracy. The system has to be reformed some way. Ideally there should be separate electorates for whites and minorities like there were separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims in British India. Either that or the proportional representation system, similar to Israel, should be adapted. At any rate, the present system, plagued by gerrymandering and other factors, is detrimental to the political interests of minorities who require their own political leaders from their grassroots. We cannot be expected to vote for candidates that are parachuted in by the two establishment parties. There has to be true democracy, not this antiquated system which benefits the white ruling class only. You are consistently refusing to acknowledge that people of different races have divergent political interests. How can it be expected that an elected official will represent the interests of a geographic based constituency; when the people who compose it are so divergent? That is against the very principles of democracy which demands fair representation of people in the corridors of power. I don't presume to speak for whites. But the reforms I am proposing will benefit any group of people who at present are not adequately represented in government. At any rate, at present Whites are overrepresented in our political system. They dominate the system. There can be no way for true social justice to prevail in this land except by whites losing some power and minorities gaining more. Right now the scales are tipped, not balanced. Our racial community is an extension of the family. This is only an extension of the natural human want and need for safety and security of not only the individual, but the family and the extended family (the community). You denying the fact that human beings are in fact divided into groups and that there is an imbalance of power and allocation of resources among them doesn't make it untrue. Fundamentally you need to understand the difference between the State and a nation. In America we live together in the same State; but we are diverse nations. A nation has its own consciousness and destiny. Perhaps in Britain you are one state and one nation. But in America it is one State but many nations (Whites, Blacks, Indigenous). These are the 3 predominant nations that coexist at present in America. If not for the fact that they are intermingled in a common territory, they would be existing as independent states and political units. Just because they cohabit with each other in a common territory does not negate the fact that they are separate nations. The political system should be reformed and be innovative enough to reflect this reality of America.
The weaknesses of our electoral systems are much wider questions than you’re giving them credit for. PR has it’s own advantages and disadvantages but I don’t see how it in itself would resolve any of your concerns. Racially divided electorates is a ridiculous and totally impractical suggestion that would only serve to increase divisions and hatred (to the point that I’m not concerned that’s exactly what you want!). It did indeed happen on religious grounds in India and it was a bad there too, helping feed the ongoing divisions and violence that continues there today. Because I don’t believe they do and you’ve not even tried to back up your assertion that they do. As I’ve said, all political constituencies are divergent on a vast range of factors and characteristics and any representatives have the very difficult task of representing all of the people in their constituency (and to an extent, beyond). If you split it on racial lines, you’d still have rich and poor, young and old, religious and non-religious, working and unemployed, etc., not to mention all of the further divisions within wider racial groupings plus all the people who are racially mixed in various ways. That’s true for many people to a greater or lesser extent. Religious communities are often the same as are other social or geographic communities, all criss-crossing and interrelated. You can’t focus on race alone – doing so is part of the problem, not the solution. No, I’m denying they’re only divided on racial grounds. We’re divided on an almost infinite number of things, that’s why each and every one of us is unique while all being part of the same human race. I’m also not denying political and social imbalances that apply on racial grounds – either directly or as indirect consequence of other divisions. What I’m challenging is your restricted focus on these problems and thus the restricted solutions you propose as a consequence. None of the three categories you list represent a singular “nation” though (you’ve also entirely overlooked all of the smaller but not insignificant racial groups who live in America). Each are as diverse and divided as they are compared to each other. For example, I take your not mentioning Hispanics means you’re lumping them all under your “white” category which overlooks very significant social and political divisions there. Representing any one of those wide and diverse “nations” would be no more difficult that representing the wide and diverse “state” as a whole. You’d still have minorities within them and they’d probably still be poorly understood and generally under-represented.
Being that you are a minority and you only want your politicians to appeal to minorities, there likely won't be any of them elected, so they won't lead anything. If you want to be a state unto yourself, beware our bloodiest war in history was fought over just that. You don't have to set yourself apart from the white majority. White people mostly don't practice racial solidarity. But if you want to be a racially based faction you'll likely be seen more along the lines of the klan or BLM.
Not officially anyways. They are the majority community. And judging by the 99% White Trump rallies, they do practice racial solidarity.
Then you've never heard the term "Uncle Tim", derived from anti-racist speaker Tim Wise, whom White nationalists view as the archetype "race traitor"
No, never heard of that. Probably because "white nationalisim," a.k.a. white supremacists, are an extreme minority among white people. A turn of phrase bandied about in the imbred hicks that don't add up to a significant fraction of a percentage point don't find their way into pop culture. Now on the other hand every white person I've ever met knows the term uncle Tom and what it means.
LOL if you think white racists are an extreme minority of hicks you show how out of touch with reality you are. After all, in the 1960s majority of White people polled believe there was true racial equality in America. Point is White people have always been oblivious to the reality of racism. Obviously because White people are not as conscious of racism since they are never the victims of it. Uncle Tom isn't even the equivalent of "Race traitor". The term "Race traitor" is predominantly used by White racists. The term "Uncle Tom" means a Black person who collaborates with White racists and helps to oppress other Black people.
Out of touch with your reality? So what? That was the decade the government passed the civil rights act. White people? That's a racist statement I pointed out where you were being racist to white people. It is a pejorative term for poeple that don't act as black people think they should. It is essentially racism against blacks by blacks. So what? Maybe in 1852 when that book was published. But today black people have every oppertunity to succeed, so they aren't oppressed by white people. So the meaning of that word has changed to mean someone who succeeds in the current system. They are looked down upon because they prove there is no oppression based on race caused by the system. Successful black people steal the gold medal in modern political oppression olympics. So they aren't awarded SJW brownie points.