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

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.

I know, right. It literally says that can't happen.

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.

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.*

Nothing wrong with Salafism lol; could you give a comprehensive definition of what Salafism is?

How does one identify a Muslim?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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