Will America Ever Have a Muslim President? (1 Viewer)

[NCSaint]

How is that any different from a right-wing Christian extremist? Like Huckaby for example?

It isn't. I don't want Huckabee in there either.

edit to add that I do think the muslim extreme is worse. I don't trust them based on the 1000's of years of christian/muslim history. But the fact is we need neither extreme in office.

 

[Waymer]

I'm sick of people coming to the defense of Muslim fundamentalism/extremism by using the Christian comparison. There is no comparison. Christianity is based on love, compasion and freedom to choose. Its all about an individual making a choice to have a relationship with Christ. The only choices in Islamofacism is which child to strap the bomb on to.

This statement couldn't be much more misleading and ignorant in regards to Islam faith.

 

[V Chip]

Until very recently, Christians were regularly using bombs and violence to affect political change -- it wasn't until 2005 that the IRA pledged to end their armed campaign. And that was between two sects of Christianity, not even really two separate religions.

To think radical Muslims represent the whole of Islam is the same as saying Fred Phelps and his ilk respresent the whole of Christianity -- it's laughable.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

There is a HUGE difference between extremist Chrsitians and extremist Muslims....no comparison...

My question is: is it the Muslim religion that tells them to use violence (or any means necessary to take over the World), or is it just the Muslim extremist's interpretation of it? Seriously asking because I'm not up to par on their faith, but the difference is huge.

Like others said, if its the extremists interpretations than its no different than what went on in Ireland, but if it actually says to use violence than....I could see a problem there. I really don't know what it says as I am ignorant on the religion....but I won't make blind accusations about it.

 

[St. Widge]

Is W forcing others to be Christian or imposing his religious beliefs by force and violence? Christianity is based on faith, which cant be forced on someone. Muslims want to take over the world by any means necessary, that is fundamental islam.

And some Christians interpret the Christian Bible to given them a duty to convert others, even if by force. Not all Muslims' think that conversion should be by use of force just as not all Christians think that. But, both have had it happen, luckily for Christianity most of it was in the past (Crusades, Central and South America).

 

[St. Widge]

There is a HUGE difference between extremist Chrsitians and extremist Muslims....no comparison...

That's mostly true. But, do you think there is that big a step from bombing an abortion clinic and a suicide bombing in Iraq? I mean it comes from the same idea that the law of their god is above all other law and must be enforced even if through killing others. It's not like killing hasn't been done before in the name of the Christian God by Christians.

Certainly the vast majority of modern Christians don't think or act that way, but there are some that would likely cross the line if they felt strongly enough about it. I will agree that the teachings of the Koran do tend toward a militaristic view of the world, and the New Testament of the Christian Bible seems at odds with that, but in practice, there are groups of Christians that ignore the peace and love aspects of the New Testament, just like radical Muslims.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Until very recently, Christians were regularly using bombs and violence to affect political change -- it wasn't until 2005 that the IRA pledged to end their armed campaign. And that was between two sects of Christianity, not even really two separate religions.

I may be wrong here, but from my understanding the problems in Northern Ireland weren't a result of people trying to convert each other. It was more of a political dispute.

That's all beside the point, since this thread seems to have taken a turn towards painting all Muslims as radicals. There is a Muslim in Congress, and I don't think he's been introducing any bills to establish Sharia law.

Will America ever elect a Wahabist Muslim? Not unless the demographics change in a major way, and there is no realistic chance of that happening. I don't think America would elect a Muslim at all, unless they become a very large minority and the political influence of Christianity wanes significantly. If a Mormon can't get elected President then a Muslim has no shot.

 

[BigRonJon]

Christ does not take kindly to someone blowing up abortions clinics, but the quran encourage violence against non-muslims. Big difference.

 

[Jeff Miller]

The essence of Islam is very anti-American. The essense of America is anti-islam.

I would go so far as to say that Islam and western civilization is in essense, incompatible. Yes i know muslims live and work in the United States and in other parts of the world. I'm refering to the form of Islam that is the more conservative form that actually run governments in several countries. In or for there to ever be a Muslim president, this could would have to undergo a fundamental change in it cultural makeup. I think its far more likely we would have a Mexican president first.

 

[MSUSousaphone]

That's mostly true. But, do you think there is that big a step from bombing an abortion clinic and a suicide bombing in Iraq? I mean it comes from the same idea that the law of their god is above all other law and must be enforced even if through killing others.

But there you have it. This statement is flat out wrong. The Christian teachings frown upon killing, even in God's name. Jesus never killed any of his doubters and preached to 'turn the other cheek'.

You're mistaking the teachings of the religion with the actions of te extremists, which is my point. So if the teachings of the Muslim faith DOES say that killing is OK in the name of God, then its not comparable.

But I'm still asking from someone that knows the faith better than I, does it really say violence is OK, or is that just the extremists interpretations? Because if its the latter, then there wouldn't be much difference between the religions.

 

[Waymer]

Christ does not take kindly to someone blowing up abortions clinics, but the quran encourage violence against non-muslims. Big difference.

Why don't you reference some of these items for us and all reading this thread? The Quran is very specific in who cannot be harmed.

Edit: For example, a Jihad cannot be carried out again civilians, elderly, other religious leaders, etc. And a Jihad is not a Holy War as many Americans believe.

 

[BigRonJon]

Why don't you reference some of these items for us and all reading this thread? The Quran is very specific in who cannot be harmed.

I would be happy to tomorrow, I'm at work now and dont have the book here. I think its important for people to know the truth that political correctness is trying to hide.

The Quran is specific in who must be harmed, all "infidels" or non-muslims.

 

[St. Widge]

Christ does not take kindly to someone blowing up abortions clinics, but the quran encourage violence against non-muslims. Big difference.

Well, my reading of the Christian Bible would support your conclusion, but obviously other Christians disagree. Just like most Muslims don't think the Koran call for violence against non-Muslims.

 

[RebSaint]

I would go so far as to say that Islam and western civilization is in essense, incompatible.

:redx: No. Actually Islam fits perfectly within the "western" tradition. The biggest difference is that many Judeo-Christian civilizations and nation-states seperated secular functions from religious functions. The problem with most Muslim nation states is not Islam in of itself, it's the lack of seperation between church and state.

But to claim that Islam and western civilization is incompatable is just patently false.

There are a few Muslim nations which are advanced and just as "western" as other "western" nations.

 

[St. Widge]

But there you have it. This statement is flat out wrong. The Christian teachings frown upon killing, even in God's name. Jesus never killed any of his doubters and preached to 'turn the other cheek'.

You're mistaking the teachings of the religion with the actions of te extremists, which is my point. So if the teachings of the Muslim faith DOES say that killing is OK in the name of God, then its not comparable.

But I'm still asking from someone that knows the faith better than I, does it really say violence is OK, or is that just the extremists interpretations? Because if its the latter, then there wouldn't be much difference between the religions.

My point is that any religion, be it Muslim, Christian, etc. can be interpreted by some to justify violence. (Maybe not Buddhism) And, that both extremist Christians and Extremist Muslims have and will commit acts of violence in the name of their god. Your claim was that there was a "HUGE difference" between extremist Christians and extremist Muslims. That statement is "flat out wrong." On the other hand, there is nothing wrong about what I said, since I agree that the New Testament teaches a path of peace and love. The problem is that some don't interpret it that way and find ways of using the language in the Christian Bible to justify violence, just as some interpret the words of the Koran to justify violence.


As for Islam, it's been awhile since I read any of the Koran or studied Islam, but it is easy to see why someone might interpret it to promote violence against non-believers. The entire basis of the religion is Muhammad who was a profit, but was also a military leader. There is a call for Jihad, but as I understand it, if you interpret the language correctly it does not call for war against all non-believers. Waymer seems to know what he is talking about on the subject, he probably understands it better than I do. I also suspect that UncleTravelingJim would be well versed on the subject. That is if we can coax him out of hiding.