Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The President has the constitutional power to ban Muslims from coming to the US watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    I'm not sure what merely being a Muslim means you'v committed serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.

    Also, we need to keep this in perspective. While of course Muslims represent a real threat to Americans, it is nothing compare to the threat posed toddlers. Muslim terrorists have shot zero Americans in 2016. In the sam time period, 23 Americans have been shot by toddlers including 7 fatally. Don't let the mainstream media blind you to the real threat.
    Since the motive for the killing seems to make no difference for you then surely you would support a ban on the sale of alcohol in the U.K..

    I am glad you admit to muslim terrorists being a real threat to the U.S.. You and Trump are of one mind on this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree, most individual Muslims aren't involved in human rights violations which I think the Supreme Court would want to see evidence of. He wouldn't actually ban all Muslims anyway.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    Whilst I have my issues with aspects of the Muslim community a ban would fail to make any real change.

    Not only that whilst Islamic terrorism is a threat according to police forces it is movements like the sovereign citizen movement which they rank as being the biggest threat.
    Maybe in the U,K.. How many deaths are muslim extremists responsible for. Now add up the body count for every right wing nut job group in the U.S..

    Why are you so keen on the U.S. loading up on muslims. I guess misery really does love company.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If Donald is really concerned about death tolls he is better off addressing gun violence which (according to gun violence archives) recorded more than 10,000 gun deaths in the year 2015 alone. But no, his supporters are ignorant so facts are counterintuitive. As long as their prejudice however preposterous is assured legitimacy he will win those votes.

    (Original post by NDT)
    1.4 million: Americans who died in all wars since 1776.
    1.4 million: Americans who died via household guns since 1968.

    3,400: Americans who died by terrorism since 2001.
    3,400: Americans who died by household firearms in 2 months (in 2015)

    400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.
    400,000: Americans who died by household firearms since 2001.
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I know, right. It literally says that can't happen.
    Um no the constitution cannot literally say anything 🗿
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Name me one example country from around the world where muslims actually helped and successfully stopped salafism...
    I think it is safe to say that the amount of muslims in a country is directly correlated to the amount of terrorism and barbarity, So it follows that less is a good thing.
    Nothing wrong with Salafism lol; could you give a comprehensive definition of what Salafism is?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Maybe in the U,K.. How many deaths are muslim extremists responsible for. Now add up the body count for every right wing nut job group in the U.S..

    Why are you so keen on the U.S. loading up on muslims. I guess misery really does love company.
    when experts in the field, who react to the threats as they happen trying to prevent or minimis them, say that Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat to security I take that as being quite a serious comment, when they say sovereign citizen is more serious a threat I also take that as a serious comment. They after all know what they are talking about from first hand experience.*
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    when experts in the field, who react to the threats as they happen trying to prevent or minimis them, say that Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest threat to security I take that as being quite a serious comment, when they say sovereign citizen is more serious a threat I also take that as a serious comment. They after all know what they are talking about from first hand experience.*
    I gave you something concrete. You gave me what you say is the opinion of some unnamed, "police force". How are you defining a threat? Innocent people being blown up obviously is not a part of your definition.What do you mean by, "...the biggest threat to security..."? A threat to ordinary citizens or a threat to the State to function? Honestly, the only police force I can see having such a preposterous opinion would be an all muslim one. Have you allowed those to form? It's just a matter of time I'm sure.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Nothing wrong with Salafism lol; could you give a comprehensive definition of what Salafism is?
    Comprehensive, no. But it entails full on shariah law which is bad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    How does one identify a Muslim?
    He could make them all wear a badge declaring their faith. That sounds familiar...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Comprehensive, no. But it entails full on shariah law which is bad.
    All strands of Islam entail Shariah law. The point I was going to make from this was that people know buzzwords like 'Salafi' witout knowing what they actually mean, so it makes them ignorant on matters concerning them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    All strands of Islam entail Shariah law. The point I was going to make from this was that people know buzzwords like 'Salafi' witout knowing what they actually mean, so it makes them ignorant on matters concerning them.
    If that was true there'd be a few more stonings in the UK I have a suspicion.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    If that was true there'd be a few more stonings in the UK I have a suspicion.
    Your line of logic/suspicions wrong - there are many Salafis in the UK; by your logic stoning should already be prevalent given this enlightening fact...

    Since you don't appear to have much knowledge in the area, I will help provide an insight: Salafism is a form of 'Aqeedah'. Aqeedah encompasses the foundations of Islamic belief, and there are various types which make up the different sects and sub-sects of Muslims e.g. Salafis, Barelwis, Ithna-Ashari Shia, Zaydi Shia, Ismaeli Shia, Ibadis, Deobandis, various forms of Sufism etc. In all of these examples (and the rest of the groups I could list), they all believe in the use of Shariah law - point being that the implementation of Shariah in Muslim communities is a common foundational belief to all Muslims.

    I say again, if you wish to use buzzwords like 'Salafism' then first know what you are talking about so that you can make a more informed and valid point :yy:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Your line of logic/suspicions wrong - there are many Salafis in the UK; by your logic stoning should already be prevalent given this enlightening fact...

    Since you don't appear to have much knowledge in the area, I will help provide an insight: Salafism is a form of 'Aqeedah'. Aqeedah encompasses the foundations of Islamic belief, and there are various types which make up the different sects and sub-sects of Muslims e.g. Salafis, Barelwis, Ithna-Ashari Shia, Zaydi Shia, Ismaeli Shia, Ibadis, Deobandis, various forms of Sufism etc. In all of these examples (and the rest of the groups I could list), they all believe in the use of Shariah law - point being that the implementation of Shariah in Muslim communities is a common foundational belief to all Muslims.

    I say again, if you wish to use buzzwords like 'Salafism' then first know what you are talking about so that you can make a more informed and valid point :yy:
    I really don't care at all about these arbitrary labels, and it doesn't make you some kind of genius for bothering to memorise them either. Anyone reading an anti-Islam comment that mentions shariah law can probably apply some common sense and know I'm not talking about civil marriage law.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    I really don't care at all about these arbitrary labels, and it doesn't make you some kind of genius for bothering to memorise them either. Anyone reading an anti-Islam comment that mentions shariah law can probably apply some common sense and know I'm not talking about civil marriage law.
    In other words you don't care about misdirecting your criticism through labels you don't understand since you prefer not knowing what you are talking about? If you are not prepared to direct your criticism correctly then your criticism becomes invalid - you were trying to argue that more countries should try to stop the spread of a group without knowing who they are or what they believe, which is fundamentally stupid.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    In other words you don't care about misdirecting your criticism through labels you don't understand since you prefer not knowing what you are talking about? If you are not prepared to direct your criticism correctly then your criticism becomes invalid - you were trying to argue that more countries should try to stop the spread of a group without knowing who they are or what they believe, which is fundamentally stupid.
    Under that logic no one can criticism Islam unless they know everything about it. Which incidentally is the most common argument from Islamist apologists.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Under that logic no one can criticism Islam unless they know everything about it. Which incidentally is the most common argument from Islamist apologists.
    Not at all - you simply need to know core concepts or about the specific bit you are criticising; you know neither, so arguing with this straw man means nothing. Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and then learn and move on already - we don't need to keep slogging this topic out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Not at all - you simply need to know core concepts or about the specific bit you are criticising; you know neither, so arguing with this straw man means nothing. Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and then learn and move on already - we don't need to keep slogging this topic out.
    Islamic fundamentalism. I don't have any interest in these minor details you're trying to push in my face because they change nothing. This is a simple and cheap attempt at a derailment, nothing more.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Islamic fundamentalism. I don't have any interest in these minor details you're trying to push in my face because they change nothing. This is a simple and cheap attempt at a derailment, nothing more.
    It isn't derailment nor is it "minor details". I am Salafi leaning and you apparently want to stop the spread of beliefs that Salafis hold without knowing what those beliefs are and what the beliefs of the rest of Muslims are. Sure, if you said you wanted to stop the spread of specific beliefs then that would have been a valid opinion, but the reason I am picking up on this is because it's akin to me saying "countries need to stop the existence of children" but really you mean you want to stop youth crime - this is a stupid and ignorant statement, and you have proved that you don't know what you are talking about, so just either reconstruct your opinion in a valid way (where you know what you are talking about) or just give up already, rather than hiding behind claims of 'derailment'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    Donald trump simply panders to the uneducated / xenophobes. Such people don't need to be respected or convinced as long as their prejudices can be addressed in empty words.

    If he is really concerned about death tolls he is better off addressing gun violence which on average killed more than 1 person a everday in 2015. But no, his supporters are ignorant so facts are counterintuitive 🐔





    Um no the constitution cannot literally say anything 🗿
    I was making reference to the web page with the typed version, and for all you know I use a screen reader, so let's not be padantic about things
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I was making reference to the web page with the typed version, and for all you know I use a screen reader, so let's not be padantic about things
    Admitting mistakes is not a sign of weakness but a sign of maturity

    All the power to you if you want to deny the same :chaplin:
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.