Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where are the Pope Francis and Dalai Lamas of the muslim world? The silence is deafening.
Islam has no equivalent at all to either the pope or the dalai lama. It's as decentralized a religion as exists.
Muslims do speak out against terrorism. It just doesn't get as much publicity, in part because the muslims speaking out don't have any more moral/religious authority than any other muslim.
Islam has no equivalent at all to either the pope or the dalai lama. It's as decentralized a religion as exists.
Muslims do speak out against terrorism. It just doesn't get as much publicity, in part because the muslims speaking out don't have any more moral/religious authority than any other muslim.
Actually the top 3 most followed Muslim Imams on social media are all radicals.
Actually the top 3 most followed Muslim Imams on social media are all radicals.
I don't doubt it.
All I'm saying is that looking for the islamic equivalent of the pope or the dalai lama is futile, because no equivalent currently exists. The closest I can think of would be the caliphs, but they've been gone a long while now. While ISIL has ambitions of reinstating the caliphate, they're a *long* way from actually attaining it. In the meantime, there is no single worldwide moral authority that can speak for islam the way that the pope can speak for roman catholics or the dalai lama for tibetan buddhists.
Very few if you consider the view that killing apostates of Islam as not peaceful. E.g. 80% Pakistanis say apostates should be killed. Though no one outside Pakistan would say 80% Pakistanis are not peaceful, since that number just sounds awefully high.
It depends on how you define it.
If Islams were not practicing their religion peacefully, then the world's population would be a tenth of what it currently is.
Why don't you actually look at how many Muslims there are around the world?
If Islams were not practicing their religion peacefully, then the world's population would be a tenth of what it currently is.
Why don't you actually look at how many Muslims there are around the world?
Infidel population in every Muslim country is decreasing per year, even today. Do a study on India and Pakistan and you should get the picture.
Let's not forget every so called Muslim country was an Infidel country at some point.
" Why stop there and not restrictions on Hindus or Buddhists or Jews for that matter.'
Has any of those declared a Jihad against the U.S.?
Has any of those car bombed, human vest bombed or done any other terrorist acts around the world?
Context means a lot!
There are a few million Muslims in the US that are peaceful, we need to place restrictions on all Muslims because of the actions of a few? We need to make dramatic changes based on irrational fear. Always reminds me of the internment of Japanese citizens.
There are a few million Muslims in the US that are peaceful, we need to place restrictions on all Muslims because of the actions of a few? We need to make dramatic changes based on irrational fear. Always reminds me of the internment of Japanese citizens.
About 1% of US population is Muslim, yet they are competing for the top spot with the 99% of US Non-Muslim population when it comes to terrorism on US soil.
It's time to put restrictions on religion too, Islam doesn't belong in a civilized society. I understand that this is the Left's favorite religion and though they always want to limit every freedom in the constitution, they will fight for their allies (Islam) in this case.
To be a good Muslim is to be like Muhammad. Unfortunately Muhammad wasn't a nice chap, and that's putting it mildly. Sina's Challenge
There was a time when the Islamic Empire was @ or near the peak of civilization in the World. Unfortunately, that was a long time ago. They faded from that into the Ottoman Empire, & fell further & underwent partition by the European powers.
Does the Left have a favorite religion? I don't see why - there are Christians & theists of various stripes in the Left, but I don't think theological pursuits - like ranking the World's religions by preference or abhorrence - are a favorite Leftist pastime.
I don't see how you can put restrictions on Islam as a faith in the US, without doing a lot of violence to the Constitution. Instead, we should probably focus on Islam as a system of government, moral values & popular culture for its adherents. That we can address - child brides, spouse abuse, honor murders & so on. The cases need to be clear-cut - because Islam may not distinguish between religion & morality, but we in the West do.
Does our government, in any honest sense, actually follow the Constitution? No.
Does the Supreme Court, in any honest sense, interpret the actual Constitution? No.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner
So why is it that people obsess about the Constitution? That is simple, because it serves their interests, and nothing more.
Their hope is to use the Constitution as a shield against the ambitions and abuses of Democracy(IE to protect themselves from other members of society).
Of course, they are fooling themselves. The Constitution has never in any real sense protected absolutely anyone from anything. Only the interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court could have ever had such an effect.
"Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other or at least no more accurate definition of a despotism than this." - Lysander Spooner
And as any sane person understands, the Supreme Court does not interpret the Constitution as it is, but simply, as they want it to be. The members of the court are activists, who serve the interests of the elite/ruling class, not the people.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." - Thomas Jefferson
There is no Constitution. Though there is a pretend document which can be used at times by those in power to legitimize their actions. But by no means are our rulers limited by any piece of paper.
And what are you going to do about it? Nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those were the days
