Islam v The United States: How To Diffuse a Political Time-Bomb

The suggestion of searching on the "gates of ijtihad" was for those who are looking for knowledge, not those seeking to thrust their head more deeply into the sand.

 

"Medieval mindset" would be an advancement of 30,000 years. They are permanently backward Stone Age clans and fugitives from evolution. There is no hope that any civilizing will have a lasting effect.

 

Passive is not a tense, it is a voice. So why should any truly educated person think that your special knowledge gives you special understanding?

 

If you're going to quote someone, it is ok to excerpt portions.

It is not ok to CHANGE the text. Try making accurate quotes.

As to the difference between voice and tense, in ancient Hebrew, the terms, as we understand them in English, don't apply, since the actual language has something that is a type of hybrid between the two. You mincing words here to discredit, and changing quotes, which makes you a manipulative "Tool".

-

 

reading is not your thing is it? I told you how you get them, I think you go after them using RICO -- which is the same way you go after organized crime.

Here's Wikipedia's summary of the RICO law:

That's what you do -- If you can prove that a mosque or a leader of a mosque is ordering those cirmes, you charge them with racketeering. That would shut down the offending mosques without having to ban Islam. All you have to do is show a pattern in which a mosque would be encouraging terrorism, or assisting muslims entering the country illegally, of something similar. Bye bye mosque, and the Imam leading that mosque goes to jail. And we don't need to change a single law to do that. That's all i'm asking, that we don't create a special law for JUST Islam and that we judge Muslims on the content of their character.

 

If you single out the Cleric, or Imam of a particular Mosque, and use the RICO legislation to shut them down, you make them into individual, heroic Martyrs, in their eyes and cultural affinity.

It would only make matters worse.

What needs to happen, is that the rank and file Congregation of the Mosque needs to be made to feel the onus of supporting illegal activities.

But you're never going to make a Suicide Bomber Co-Conspirator Murder One wrap stick to EVERYONE of the Congregation.

This was the same problem enlightened law enforcement and prosecutors faced in the deep south, when trying to combat the KKK and their violence.

Yes, you could put the people directly involved in a Lynching into prison, and maybe even get the death penalty. But that only made them into martyrs for the cause of White Supremacy. Thus it created a whole new crop of them.

What they eventually did, was drive a wedge between the radical elements of society at large, and those who were neutral or abstaining from the argument, by using Affirmative Action for force inclusion into schools, law enforcement, courts, and other critical positions of respect, authority and power. This was effective at breaking the cycle.

Unfortunately, the ink was not dry on Affirmative Action, before the Democratic Party began warping into the twisted Anti-White&Male exclusion political pandering machine we see today.

-

 

So there's an islamic verse in the koran that says "go to jail for allah, get virgins?" Besides, did you miss that we're also essentially siezing the assets of said mosque (the continuing enterprise, essentially the legitamate front of a criminal organization) if we can prove to a jury that they're using the mosque to support terrorism? Once the mosque is closed, you send a message -- we will not tolerate you using a religious organization as a front for terrorism. Which is kinda the point. Once enough radical mosques are closed and assets siezed, the message should be obvious.

I don't need to. I just need to jail the bad imams and close their mosques. Which would make them feel the onus of not supporting illegal activity -- because it means that not stopping radical islam will mean no mosques. And I do question the assertion that everyone in a mosque is involved in the criminal activity. think about the front business of a Mafia ring -- do you think that the idiot working the counter at Vinny's Flower Shop (really a front for drug running) making $10 an hour knows what's going on? Do you think that anyone outside of the leadership of a mosque necessarily knows what's going on? If they had no reason to suggest that the mosque is a front, they are not guilty, if it was obvious, then they cannot avoid the charge. This isn't all that complicated.

Why wouldn't RICO do the same thing? it would drive a wedge. For the very simple reason that if the people of a mosque do not reject the radical element in their mosques, they won't have them, nor will they have Islamic Charities, nor Islamic Banks or whatever else -- because we'll shut down every last one of them if they're fronts. The point isn't necessarily to arrest everyone, it's to shut down the network -- once it becomes clear that any radical activity in an organization will mean that organization no longer exists, they'll be very reluctant to let radicals run things. If letting radicals run the Missouri Muslim Cancer Society as a front means that the government shuts down that charity, they'll have that choice, reject radicalism or reject the idea of having a Muslim Cancer Society.

What it also does is reward those who do reject radicalism -- they are allowed to exist. Their charities prosper. their cultural organizations flourish while radical ones are closed.

What do you think would happen if you target all muslims? I'll tell you what I think -- rather than driving all muslims away from radicalism, you drive them toward it. After all, what you've proven (for example by making it illegal to own a Koran without permission) is that you are hostile to Islam, and being more or less radical is not a part of the calculation. So people feeling rather threatened will look for protection. This is when the radicals who we want to "marginalize" are most in their element. They get to step in as protectors of the community. It's part of why the KKK was successful at first -- when the North won, they set about punishing the South with reconstruction -- Northerners got rich rebuilding the south, people lost homes, and they were forced to accept an entirely new way of life (from agrarian to industrial) . Well, the KKK and other such groups were able to pretend to stand up for the Southerner, and thus they became pretty mainstream. The neo-nazis are the same kind of thing -- the average skinhead is a poor disenfranchised white kid who feels that the world is against him. So my prediction of what would happen if we do as you suggest is that it would be the same as what happened with radical racialist groups -- as the muslims feel more and more that there is no place for them in society, they are more likely to see radicals as protecting them, rather than causing them trouble.

 

-

I have already stated that the restrictions I have outlined only have the POTENTIAL to apply to ALL Muslims, because of their Religions tendency toward violence that we don't see in other religions.

I also stated that any Muslims who disassociate themselves from Radical Islam, would not be affected by the restriction. See the post I made back a few pages about the "Tale of Two Mosques".

In that example, I clearly delineate which Muslims would work themselves into the bind, and the simple, common sense steps any Muslim / Mosque could take to avoid the problem. BTW, the steps I have outlined do not ask the Muslims to do anything that I would not also ask of ANY American of ANY Religion.

Page 11 of this thread:

You can see, it is an approach which uses RICO and the concept of the extended support co-Conspirator.

But we are not going to imprison 600+ members of a Mosques congregation for encouraging the violence that escalated into a bombing. Among other reasons, we simply cannot afford too!

There has to be a set of penalties which make it clear we will make your life miserable, and you will NOT advance the cause of Islam by these actions, short of outright imprisonment. Hence giving up the rights to assemble, to own weapons, to be searched at any time, to have to report your movement and affiliations, and be restricted in ownership of worship materials if those inspire you or your peers to further violence.

These penalties would not be applied willy-nilly to ALL Muslims, but the legislation would make the exceptional declaration, that due to its recent history, unlike other Religions, it CAN be applied to Muslims.

The non-Muslim victims have rights. This is a reasonable approach to send the message that Radial Islam will not advance their cause through violence in America.

It does not affect any Muslim who does what we would ask of any Christian, in stopping the public demonstrations of hatred and promoting violence. It does not penalize any Muslim who cooperates with non-Muslim government officials in keeping the peace. It ONLY affects those who preach violence and then some member of their groups ACTS on that violence.

What is so wrong about that?

-

 

More or less, although this is pretty much the case for most countries.

The only countries that don't tend to fixate on some foreign enemy are usually rather small and insignificant in global power struggles.

 

As before, you are wrong Islam isn't even a religion, and by its supremacism, it certainly is unconstitutional, being in violation of Article 6 Section 2, the Supremacy Clause, as well as in violation of the Seditious Conspiracy law, and the many laws it violates (murder, rape, sex discrimination, wife-beating, slavery, pedophilia, torture, animal cruelty. In America, Islam simply doesn't fit - it doesn't even come close.

One little thing will work. No Islam in America.

 

But affirmative action is wrong, and hardly an example to model oneself after.

We already understand why Muslims hate us. Because that is what their crazy book the Koran teaches them, and consequently, they are lunatics, and have been for 1400 years.

 

Christianity is more than superior. It is good. Islam is evil. Also, Christianity is not supremacist, seditious, and in violation of numerous US laws, all of which do characterize Islam. It is not that our government is anti-Muslim. It is that Islam is anti-our govt.

 

But the US really remind me of Rome and their relationship with Carthage. A little piece of Rome died when the Carthagians where finally destroyed. In ways I see the same for the US with the end of the Soviets

 

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment!

But that does not mean that the legal authority and mechanism by which the 14th Amendment Rights of All American White Males were suspended indefinitely, and across the scope of all facets of life; schooling, loans, business licenses, job attainment, job promotions, public research grants, ....

Just because the legal authority and mechanism used to create Affirmative Action was implemented in a way which was a gross violation of Civil Rights and has perpetuated racial stereotypes and prejudice!

Just because the legal authority and mechanism was used incorrectly in the case of AA, does not mean that its use is either forbidden in the future, or always wrong.

The process of eminent domain law has also often been abused, particularly by those want to create nature preserves. That does not mean that every use of eminent domain law is bad.
Sometimes, even the use of eminent domain to create nature preserves has been done constitutionally, and with respect to all parties involved.



I brought it up because someone argued that you could not constitutionally single out an identity group of American ( either White Males, or Muslims ) and pass laws which treat them differentially from all other Americans.

Clearly we HAVE DONE SO! We did so with the creation of Affirmative Action, and those laws and programs are still in place today! Now, many constitutional scholars would argue that is not, and never was LEGAL by the Constitution, and I would personally be among them.

Others would argue that the extreme prejudice and violence against blacks in the 1960s in the deep south made the sacrifice of the 14th Amendments Rights of All American White Males worth the benefit of the aid that AA brought to the fight against the KKK and anti-black violence, and that the Supreme Court has the right to suspend the 14th Amendment Rights of any American if it deems the benefit to the greater good of society.

I personally disagree with the concept that the Supreme Court can suspend any of the Amendment Rights or any part of the Constitution for any American. But clearly my ideas, and those who agree with my position have lost that battle, because 40 years latter, AA is not only still going, it is still GROWING.

Now, if we accept the very real fact that AA is an example of the Supreme Court being able to suspend the 14th Amendment Rights ( or any other Amendment Right ) for an Identity Group of Americans, for the greater good of Society....

If we acknowledge that this POWER is currently in use in the United States, which it obviously is!

Then that same legal authority and mechanism COULD be used to pass special legislation limiting the Rights of Muslim Americans! Period.

Or are you trying to argue that Muslim American have MORE Rights than White Male Americans?

In the end, does it really matter at all why, or for how long?

Knowing WHY they hate U.S. brings us all to close to the temptations to change ourselves, to give them Appeasement Concessions, to try to stop the violence.

Only history has shown, with this particular culture, it is only going to bring about around 6 months of peace, followed by a quadrupling of the violence.

In my mind, the only thing that really matters is what will make them stop the killing!

What will stop the killing, is sending a very clear message to all of Islam, the violence will NEVER get you what you want.

-

 

But our latest Radical Islamic Bombing was NOT a foreign power? It was done by American Muslim Citizens.

-

 

I've got to admire the fact that you don't mince any words about your position and perceived differences between the two Religions.

I am not sure I would quite as far in condemning all of Islam, but I do believe that there are currently large segments of Islamic Leadership and Clergy who are not acting in good faith or honesty when it comes to the common followers of the Religion, but rather are using and abusing them in a quest for personal power.

I am also NOT a Christian. Despite my wife and both of my daughters being Christians, I would say that I am closed to a Wiccan Pagan, or perhaps a Budhist, if you were to classify me among any organized religion.

I do not place as much faith in Christianity, but see it as generally a force for good in the world, but understand that at times in history, it was abused in much the same way that Islam is being abused now.

Still, you have the courage of your convictions, and I admire that rare quality in our modern world.

-

 

I can't help but think when I read this that it's like watching a fan of the Chicago Bears talk about the Green Bay Packers. It's so tribal, so troop like. So monkey. So black and white. Yes islamic factions are running with tenents and using it for violence. So are christians when they amass for invasion of a sovereign nation to steal oil. There's wrong on both sides and naturally neither side can see the wrong in themselves...only "the opposing team". Only our "footballs" are very deadly and dangerous and the game's end means the stadium and all the surrounding lands are destroyed...

 

"Abusing"??? They are using it the same way their prophet did. Using it the same way the first four Rashidun, "Rightly Guided" Caliphs used it. To compell the believers to "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers, "until religion should only be for Allah", to expand the empire of Islam, to conquer the unbelievers.

 

Can you show us the Christian tenents that advocate violence to steal ones oil? I can provide a long list of tenents from the Koran that advocate violence to conquer the unbelievers.

 

I think you answered your own question.

 

Of course it is- recognized by the dictionary, by courts, by the Federal Government- by virtually everyone but you.

Your position is irrational.

And of course that just silly also.

Just nonsense.

 

Where do you get the idea that the SCOTUS is suspending the 14th Amendment ? The court ruled against DeStefano in Ricci vs DeStefano (ruling against AA), and is likely to rule against it again, in the soon upcoming case of Schuette vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. AA has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam. Islam is simply unconstitutional and illegal, and should be banned, period.

Also, where do you et the idea that AA is growing ? It is still practiced, however it is banned by law in 8 states and once the SCOTUS rules against it in the Schuette vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, this could finally be the end of it. Although this will be way too late for me, and millions of others who have been victimized (literally had our lives destroyed) by it for 50 years.

 

Well put septimine. I think a lot of muslims like how we took their economy from sandy goat herders to the richest nation on the earth. Math originated in that region so I think they can do the math on Americans buying their oil = their wealth.

That being said, invading their "biz-nas" with our military franchises at every drop of stinkbait from Russia or China is inviting their hatred and resentment of us. Of course, Russia and China stand to gain finanically [more plentiful/ ergo, cheaper oil] if the ME and the US are grappling and at odds with each other, doing emobargos etc.

Outer space is a really good perspective to back up and get the whole picture.