It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Allow Muslim's in?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 07:17 PM
a reply to: Doctor G

Looking at the title of this thread, I say let anyone in who knows the difference between the plural form of a noun and a possessive form. Deport and ban illiterates.

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 07:50 PM

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest

Are we talking about refugees? Or Donald Trump's ban on Islamic travel? I don't think we need to let any refugees in. But to ban travel based on religion is unconstitutional.

Trump is stupid, so how about any foreigners from a Middle East country, happy?

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 08:10 PM
I don't think that we need any more people in the US.

I think that all immigration should be controlled by the department of labor and the only people that get to immigrate to the US would be those that have an occupation that we need.

Just my opinion.

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:45 PM
a reply to: sirlancelot

I've noticed something about people like you who "quote" the Qur'an. Why won't you ever tell which translation of the Qur'an you're quoting? And why don't you link the actual Qur'an, so people can read the passages for themselves? Then they can read the actual passages (instead of the paraphrased crap you posted); read them in context; and read the entire Surahs that contain those passages.

This reminds me of the fearmongering elders who tell kids not to do something or some horrific thing will happen to them. The children are too scared to actually look into whether this is true or not. But one day, the children try it anyway, discover that their elders lied to them, and now the children no longer trust the elders.

If you don't accept the Qur'an, that's fine. Islam isn't for everyone & I honestly wouldn't want everyone to be a Muslim anyway. But misleading people about what's actually in the Qur'an is only going to make you lose credibility in the long run. If you've actually read the Qur'an, you'll know that I actually posted entire Surahs (no cherry picking individual passages from them); told what translation I used; and gave a link so people can read it for themselves to make sure I didn't make it up. Why don't you do the same?
edit on 8-12-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:48 PM

At what point does this Islamophobia become an attack on our Constitutional freedom of religion?

At what point does our freedom of religion become suicide? Letting Muslims immigrate here is the stupidest thing America has ever done.

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:19 PM

originally posted by: CB328

At what point does this Islamophobia become an attack on our Constitutional freedom of religion?

At what point does our freedom of religion become suicide? Letting Muslims immigrate here is the stupidest thing America has ever done.

Including 9/11, there have been 3,380 Americans killed by terrorism from 2001 to 2013. In that same time period, there were 406,496 people killed by firearms on US soil.

American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence in one graph

Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350.

In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the U.S. and found that between 2001 and 2013, there were 3,030 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,380.

To put that in even more context, roughly 5,000 American kids are killed every year because of child abuse and child neglect. And roughly 600,000 Americans die every year because of heart disease. And cancers kill another 580,000 Americans every year. In fact, the flu & pneumonia kill roughly 56,000 Americans every year.

So yeah, every year the flu and pneumonia kill roughly 19 times as many Americans as those killed by terrorism from 2001 to 2013 combined. And child abuse & child neglect kill nearly twice as many Americans as the 9/11 attacks every year. But according to you, freedom of religion is the problem? This is the difference between fear & facts.

(note: I used from 2001 to 2013 since those are the numbers in the articles.)

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: Doctor G

I think this whole issue is arbitrary and contrived.

We turn away Haitians every week, no one says a damned thing.

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 11:34 PM

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Doctor G

I think this whole issue is arbitrary and contrived.

We turn away Haitians every week, no one says a damned thing.

Actually we immigrate almost 200K a year.
Haitian immigrants

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 02:07 AM

originally posted by: Xtrozero
There are a lot of people suffering in Africa and South America too, hell there are 2 million homeless kids in Brazil alone, so why the big push when we never pushed before. I have a sister in law that doesn't have a very good life and its been 12 years trying to get her here, so it makes me a little frustrated that the President is using this as a political ploy. How the hell do they get here anyways, it is not like they travel on foot or by boat.

No, but they have a lot of Saudi money with them ... that makes them "interesting".

That said, I'll take up the real issue ... "freedom of religion". There is nothing about religion, that "requires" a church. In our modern world, GOD is a spiritual entity ... his house, is therefore a SPIRITUAL thing, not a material incarnation. This means, that religion does not require a church. Nor should it guarantee you one.

In the times of past, when poverty was so enormous that no one got to be educated unless they had money and backup. The religious groups, provided education. This has changed, governments provide this education ... and it's unbiased education, which outweighs the religious one. Not only that, but also the churches, synagogues and mosques are not a religious concept ... but a political concept. Historically, the church's bells were used to warn about coming raid parties, incoming armies and to call for a meeting of the community. Historically, the leaders of the church ... were also the kings, queens and their cohorts.

In fact, anyone standing up and saying "I am a muslim, therefore I ..." is someone requesting special treatment. He is requesting exempt status, born from his beliefs. Just because you "believe" you are right ... does not make you right.

You are Jewish, does not automatically give you right above others ... because you are "Gods true people". Neither does the fact that you are a Christian, state that you are better or worse than any other human being. The "I believe ..." should be taken out of the equation ... nobody should have a right to start a church ... and any such community, should have the same legal boundary as any government organisation, where political issues are at stake.

That you are a Christian, does not give you the RIGHT to rally ... nor does a Muslim, give you that right. Do have the right to rally, you need to file a request through the right governmental channels.

What you believe, is none of our business ... but when you come out and throw in our faces, demand special treatment, because of your beliefs ... it becomes our business. And my beliefs, have the equivalent rights to yours ... and both you, and I, should practice our beliefs in our own homes and not "force them on others".

Churches, Mosques and Synagogues should have special regulations that should be there to limit their existence. And religious people, should be motivated to practice their beliefs in their own home ... their beliefs, is not a "public interest".

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: bjarneorn
Churches, Mosques and Synagogues should have special regulations that should be there to limit their existence. And religious people, should be motivated to practice their beliefs in their own home ... their beliefs, is not a "public interest".

I don't know if they should be limited, if a group wants to build a place of worship have fun, but if they ever stop being what they intended or expand to include supporting violence and hate that is a different story. It seems the Government had no issues going after the branch Dravidian in Waco.

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:57 AM

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Doctor G

I think this whole issue is arbitrary and contrived.

We turn away Haitians every week, no one says a damned thing.

Actually we immigrate almost 200K a year.
Haitian immigrants


The Obama administration has taken extraordinary measures to prevent desperate Haitians from entering the US since a January 12 earthquake devastated the Caribbean nation, killing an estimated 200,000, making at least 1.5 million homeless, and orphaning 1 million children. The effort to bar Haitians from entering the US—including the wounded seeking medical treatment—illustrates that the priority of the US-led intervention is not to save lives, but to establish military control over the population.

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:59 AM

originally posted by: buster2010
Actually we immigrate almost 200K a year.

I have always wondered how does a group of people who 200k years ago walked on some land and it is now their's by right forever. I must be special since I'm Irish, German, Dutch, French and Jewish, so someone owes me a lot of land somewhere. I also wondered why if you and I were born in America and maybe our ancestor for generations why I'm not from the Americas too, and if not where am I from? Maybe we should follow the multiple imaginations out of Africa too to expand our native status.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 02:32 AM
Before I start I want to state a fact that some of you guys know about me, I'm in a mixed race marriage of 34 years and my wife and in laws are Muslims although I'm not, so take that in to account before you pronounce me as a 'racist'.

Most settled Muslims who have been here a long time are NOT radical some may have been initially but time has smoothed them out but most never were radical, ever. The one's that are radical are the newer migrants from countries where a massive radicalisation has taken place, places like Iran, Pakistan, Algeria etc, persons from these countries tend to be super radical 'out of the box'. And we now have the heavy radicalisation of the youth going on in faith schools, colleges, universities and Mosques. We know its going on because EVERYONE knows its going on but for some reason we fear upsetting one religion.

Be it planned or chance its definitely STUPIDITY.

Now knowing all this it makes PERFECT sense to vet those we allow in, especially those we are granting home to, immigration MUST be treated as a business / job opportunity, does the person have skills we can use, does the person have issues against us, does the person speak the language, does the person represent a use to the economy, is the person just here to take advantage of the social benefits etc etc.

So at the moment regardless of how left wing you are we look at the world and where there are troubles and like it or not wherever Radical Islam exists there's problems, you can massage it all you want but that is the truth so its common sense that we vet entrants from Radicalised countries the most, you have to take the radical view of death to the Kuffar as exactly what they want because they have graphically shown this TOO many times to ignore it as a false threat.

The reason Donald Trump is getting stick is that he went for headlines and chose ONE set of people to vet / ban, the fact that the basis for what he said actually makes some sense has been ignored.

Do you blindly let in people from countries known for radicalisation or do you insist on security checks?

I know which one I prefer.....I know which one makes me feel safer...

And lastly, my in laws actually are in disgust of these radicals, they see them as non Muslims using the religion to do things not in the Quran and please, for those that read religious books and pick out the nasty content, be fair to admit the Bible etc also contains just as nasty things. What you see coming from Radicals are MAN MADE VERSES made by insane old perverts sitting in towers of gold leading brainwashed uneducated people down a path they created.

Think that before decrying all Muslims as bombers and haters of the West, that is the point of vetting them.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:44 AM

originally posted by: 8fl0z
Of course they don't want REAL muslims coming to the states with their bassackwards philosophy, lack of acknowledgment to human rights, and inherently violent and murderous ideology. Western muslims live a cushy life, that's why they claim to not condone the actions of true muslims, but as they say - a moderate muslim won't kill you, but they will go home and pray that a radical does.

Radical muslims are TRUE muslims, they follow the rules laid in the scripture of their holy book to the T - violence, death, destruction, domination and abuse is the true nature of islam.

Hi Muslim here .

Where's my buzzer ? Oh here it is !! Berrrrrrrrrrrr !

You completely incorrect.

And you have no idea what you are talking about .

Where did you study Islam ? The internet? ? Maybe some over night ATS scholars?

Let me make something clear , I am a conservative Muslim namely "salafi" or as some would like to call us "Wahabi" . I follow the Quran and sunna to " the T" . I would never act upon what these evil ISIS and other organisations do. No they follow a differing ideology. They are called Khuaraij and they are mostly takfiri.

These peoples actions are NOT of Islam. So for you to say that they are true muslims... Simply ignorant. That tells me you absolutely 0 understandings of Islam.

So pleas if you don't understand it , don't speak about it and spread falsehood here .

If you wish to learn the basics I'll be more than happy to give you a rundown.


posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 03:58 AM

originally posted by: sirlancelot

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Doctor G
Unfortunately for them, in other Muslim eyes, they want to follow the laws of America. That makes them bad Muslims to the rest.

Seeing how Muhammad said that Muslims are supposed to follow the laws of the nation they are living in how does that make them bad Muslims? This is what he was reported to have said.

‘Love for one's country is part of faith’

Muslims are therefore required to live by this noble teaching and remain loyal to their country.

O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority over you

Any country or government that guarantees religious freedom to followers of different faiths (not just Islam) must be owed loyalty. The Prophet Muhammad stressed this point when he said: ‘One who obeys his authority, obeys me. One who disobeys his authority, disobeys me.’

These Muslims you know seem to be like a lot of Christians we have in America. They claim to be part of a faith but don't know jack what the founder of that religion really said.

Here is a lesson on the Koran!

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

From the Quran

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

From the Hadith

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy."

Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

So if your still with you me it is clear that though all Muslims are not radicals muslims can lie and decieve to further the goals of islam.

Case in point is the San Bernadino killers: No one had any clue even our intelligence people didnt!

Hi Muslim here !

Did you pull these from

Because this is inncorect.

Lying is not permissible in Islam.

I will provide you with evidence as soon as you provide me with a link that you copy and pasted this from.

I have refuted these same vs many times on ATS.

Pleas follow T&C and provide a link

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 12:54 PM
a reply to: Doctor G

Hmm...well according to certain fundamentalist Christians, technically I'm not a Christian, because I eat pork, oysters, crab, lobster, fat (ugh, getting hungry now), I wear blended-fabric garments, shave my beard, I'm against slavery. Certain fundamentalist sects wish to overthrow our government, or stone the rest of us to death. Does this mean all Christians should be banned from the US as well?

Your friend may identify himself as "Muslim", but I think more apt definitions for him would be: "Coward", "Constitution-hater", "Anti-American." I wonder if he also thinks a "ban on Muslims" would have any positive effect whatsoever.

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: Kapusta

Here is the link.


I'm also curious about abgrogation in the Quran and whether it states that a when verses contradict another the verse found later in the the Quran are to take precedence over prior (earlier) verses.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in