Donald Trump: I Would ‘Strongly Consider’ Shutting Down Mosques to Protect America

Photo: Gage Skidmore
Photo: Gage Skidmore

(CNN)  Donald Trump on Monday suggested he would “strongly consider” shutting down mosques in the U.S. as part of the response to the terror attacks in Paris.

“Well, I would hate to do it but it’s something you’re going to have to strongly consider,” Trump said during an interview on MSNBC. “Some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas. … The hatred is incredible. It’s embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

Trump’s comments come a day after France’s interior minister said he would pursue the “dissolution of mosques where hate is preached.”

Continue reading this story >>

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • bowie1

    Sometimes it is the Muslims that become the target such as the arsonist who tossed an incendiary device in a Peterborough, Ontario, Canada mosque (with about 200 members) causing about $80,000 interior damage. When it comes to security this should be done at the borders to make sure only legitimate refugees enter in, of whatever stripe.

    • Josey

      How are they going to vet these people, they will lie, get false passports, are they going to call Syria and do a background check? They will even lie and claim to be Christians in order to get in, they are allowed to lie in the koran. I feel sorry for the families that are true refugees but most of these “so called refugees” are young men, they are a threat. I am glad for the states who are against letting them into the U.S. and not only the governors but most people don’t want them here and as far as the mosques go, I was shocked at how many have been built in the U.S. The Saudi’s won’t take in refugees but they will build more mosques for them here imo. that says a lot. But America according to Obama and his administration says we are intolerant and that this is un american that these governors don’t want them coming into their states, now that’s real funny for him to claim that and preach that propaganda since America has given more aid to other nations more than any other Country on earth, there are so many giving and loving Americans, we just want to keep our children, women and people safe, not to fall on the sacrificial altar that the leftist elites mark off as collateral damage.

      • gizmo23

        Thers have been far more “Christian” terrorist attacks in the USA since 2008.

        • Josey

          How many times do people have to go over this with you? They aren’t true Christians who do such acts, God has never led me to hurt another human being, Christ didn’t teach this. Just because someone calls themself a Christian doesn’t mean they are truly one. A true Christian will bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit found in Galatians Galatians 5:22-23 vs22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
          vs23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. This is one way to test if a Christian is a true Christian. I will speak the truth in love as stated in God’s word with His grace and wisdom, that is His love, I will not go out and kill someone who disagrees with my beliefs. Your generalization is so wrong!

          • gizmo23

            I can say the same thing about Muslim terrorists. ” they aren’t true Muslims”.
            We would never say a true Christian would own slaves, yet many of out founding fathers did. The meaning of being a true Christian has changed over the years

          • Becky

            Islam…there’s nothing truthful about their convoluted beliefs. They reject Christ and that in itself makes them an enemy of God Almighty.

          • gizmo23

            So then why did we sacrifice 4,000 young people fighting for them?

          • RWH

            Yeah, a lot of true Christians were members of the Klan. A number of true Christians killed people during the Salem Witch Trials. And a number of true Christians, headed by a true Christian–Andrew Jackson–drove the Cherokee Indians out of North Carolina during the Trail of Tears. And a number of true Christians gave the Indians blankets laced with Small Pox.

            The problem with Trump’s solution (besides pandering to people’s biases and intrinsic hatreds) opens a virtual Pandora’s Box. Our courts rule on precedent. Allow the government to close mosques, and the government will have the power to close churches that are politically incorrect. What goes around comes around.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            How very convenient for you. An escape hatch to automatically eject any Christian who does something you disapprove of. The escape clause can be invoked any time, even after the act, and allows you to never have to grapple with weighty issues of faith and morality, and never have to sully yourself by association with the individual.

          • Cady555

            Look up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

          • acontraryview

            “Just because someone calls themself a Christian doesn’t mean they are truly one.”

            So then it really is impossible to determine who is a “real” Christian and who is not. How many examples are there of individuals who have called themselves “Christian” and were leading others in faith, only to discover that they weren’t “real” Christians?

            How is it that it is reasonable to say that those individuals weren’t “real” Christians, but reasonable to say that those who commit atrocities using the Koran as their justification are “real” Muslims?

          • Josey

            The bible clearly states how to tell a true Christian from a false one, a true Child of God has the fruit of the Holy Spirit, end discussion.

          • JGC

            By what objective method can one reliably distinguish someone who has the fruit of the holy spirit from someone who does not?
            It involves, I trust, something more than determining if their subjective personal religious beliefs coincide with your own.

        • afchief

          You are a liar and serve the father of lies!!!

          • Cady555

            No. People claiming christianity have committed hundreds of terrorist attacks in the US. Other Christians just pull the “No True Christian” ™ card to deny what is happening.

            Bombings and murders at abortion clinics. A century or more of white power attacks on blacks and black churches. Attacks on mosques and muslims.

            All groups of people are the same. Most people regardless of religion are normal and peaceful, but anyone can use their religion of choice as an excuse for evil.

          • afchief

            I will repeat; You are a liar and serve the father of lies!!!

          • Cady555

            Most people are good. This is not a lie.

            Those few who want to harm others will find an excuse to do so. Also true.

          • gizmo23


      • bowie1

        Hopefully those making those determinations will know what to look for. Sometimes a person who lies may give themselves away by their eye movements or gestures suggesting they might be hiding something. It’s a method police use when they interrogate suspects looking for nervousness, gestures, etc. The intelligence community may also have information on known terrorists through social media, etc.

        • Josey

          I really don’t think the elites of this world care about vetting anyone, they want chaos so they can come on the scene as the ones who will bring order out of the chaos they caused in the first place. But fortunately, God laughs at their plans, Glory to God forever, He is Victor!

      • JGC

        Hardly a ‘call to Syria for a background check’, Josey.

        Vetting refugees is a multi step process undertaken by both governmental and non-governmental agencies, starting with an application for refugee status at one of nine State Department-funded resettlement support centers overseas (which are run by international or non-government groups) and continuing with the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services (which determines whether the candidates meet the legal requirements for refugee status) and then multiple background and security checks involving the National Counterterrorism Center; the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center; Homeland Security; and the State Department.

        If the candidate successfully passes these security check they then undergo a comprehensive health screening, receive a three-day cultural orientation and a final settlement is made.

        The whole process can take up to two years.

  • gizmo23

    Another reason the Trump shouldn’t even be considered

  • Ambulance Chaser

    The Donald would “strongly consider” shamelessly shredding the Constitution?

    And let’s be clear about something here: This isn’t the Establishment Clause he’s talking about violating. This is the Free Exercise Clause that users here hold so dear they scarcely acknowledge the existence of any other.

  • Becky

    “Well, I would hate to do it but it’s something you’re going to have to strongly consider,” Trump said during an interview on MSNBC. “Some of the absolute hatred is coming from these areas. … The hatred is incredible. It’s embedded. The hatred is beyond belief. The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

    Don’t feel bad Trump. Muslims reject Christ and, indeed, hate Americans, especially American Christians…any Christian really.

    • acontraryview

      Don’t care much for the Constitution, do you Becky?

    • Cady555

      The Constitution protects you too. If you allow one president to shut down a religion he doesn’t like, then the next president could shut down your church.

      Equal protection means that each person is responsible for their own actions.

      • Josey

        One thing about the Christian faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is this: you can take down church buildings for that is what they are just buildings but no man or devil can prevail against the Church of the Living God for our faith is not in a building, for Christ has put within every true believer a new heart, a born again heart, that cannot be taken away, not ever! And fellowship between believers will go on with or without a building, you can’t stop the work of the cross or the work Christ is finishing in His own. Muslims worship their buildings, their holy sites. Christians worship Christ and God not buildings.

        • Cady555

          Constitutional protection of religious freedom still matters.

          The government must not be allowed to treat any religion or religious view as favored or disfavored.

  • xinthose

    Deuteronomy 13

    6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the
    wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice
    thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast
    not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
    7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or
    far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other
    end of the earth;
    8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine
    eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
    9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put
    him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

    • Cady555

      The Constitution of the United States protects freedom of religion, including the freedom not to worship the god of Deuteronomy.

      • xinthose

        and that’s where they failed IMO

        • Cady555

          The United States is not a theocracy.

          • xinthose

            it has worked well I must admit; we made it past the 235 year mark when most countries end

          • Cady555


            I love Winston Churchill’s quote “It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.”

            Keeping government power and authority separate from religious belief works. Do I disagree with some religions? Sure. But the constitutional protections over freedom of religious thought are far more important than my personal preferences.

  • afchief

    Good! Shut them ALL down!! Islam is the greatest threat to Western Civilization. It is worse than were the Nazis, the Communists and all the other violent groups in history.

    They’re NOT ‘refugees’, ‘migrants’ or ‘immigrants’.
    They’re INVADERS.
    The murderous, subhuman caliphate is on the move.

    • acontraryview

      “Good! Shut them ALL down!!”

      Interesting comment from you considering how you go on and on about the protections provided by the 1st Amendment.

      • afchief

        It is quite obvious you do not understand Islam and it’s intentions!!!

        Source: United States Defense League: 2012/5/29 Islamic message to the West

        I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breath with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The following are the Islamic message to the West. — To the infidels of the West: The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction. We will fight the infidel to death. – Meanwhile American laws will protect us. – Democrats and Leftist will support us. – N.G.O.s will legitimize us. – C.A.I.R. will incubate us. – The A.C.L.U. will empower us. – Western Universities will educate us. – Mosques will shelter us – O.P.E.C. will finance us – Hollywood will love us. – Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses. Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools. We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad. We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest. We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US. Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we? We are the “sleeper cells”. We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary. At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”. We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”, Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can’t use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you. Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying. ….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad. West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper. You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us? On the camera: – We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.” – We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.” – Moderate Muslim will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the West will believe it because the West is so gullible. – Moderate Muslim all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam. – Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely. – We will increase in number. We will double again. You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, “wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911. There will be more 911 in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.” Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun. We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender – ISLAM means surrender. We will use your own values of kindness against you. You are destined to loose.

        • acontraryview

          That was not an “Islamic message to the West”. That was this person’s message. It’s quite clear that you do not understand that one person’s views do not represent the views of everyone who is Muslim.

          It’s also quite clear that you want to apply the protections provided by our Constitution only to those who you decide are worthy of those protections. It covers every citizen.

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! Once settled in, the Muslim refugees will want to remake the community into a Muslim community. In some areas of the US you can wake up in the morning hearing the Muslim call to prayers being given over a loudspeaker. Streets will be closed off to allow celebration of Muslim holidays. The number of rapes will increase. (Rape of non-Muslim women is accepted in Islam.) They will try to impose sharia law on you and your neighbors. Jewish synagogues, cemeteries, and other Jewish places will be vandalized. The schools will no longer be able to teach about the Holocaust because it did not happen.

            If your neighbors complain and try to stop the Muslim takeover of your community, you can find yourself in court being prosecuted for religious persecution.

            They’re NOT ‘refugees’, ‘migrants’ or ‘immigrants’.

            They’re INVADERS.

            The murderous, subhuman caliphate is on the move.

            OPEN YOU LIBERAL EYES!!!

          • acontraryview

            “In some areas of the US you can wake up in the morning hearing the Muslim call to prayers being given over a loudspeaker.”

            Oh, you mean like you hear church bells on Sunday?

            “Streets will be closed off to allow celebration of Muslim holidays.”

            Oh, you mean like Easter and Christmas parades?

            “The number of rapes will increase.”

            Basis? Have we seen that happen in communities with large Muslim populations?

            “They will try to impose sharia law on you and your neighbors.”

            They may try, but they will not succeed. Our Constitution – the one you seem to disrespect unless a citizen is non-Muslim – protects against such action.

            As for the rest of your unsubstantiated tirade, you are certainly entitled to you opinion.

          • afchief

            You really are pretty ignorant!!! It is because of people like you, innocent people die!!!!

            October 22, 2015
            Islam comes to Kansas
            By Carol Brown

            The Muslim conquest of America continues apace. And some unexpected places are being heavily colonized. Case in point: Wichita, Kansas.

            Wichita is a “preferred community” for “refugee resettlement,” which makes it an epicenter for invaders. (To see who the outside contractors are who rake in money as they facilitate this disaster, see here.)

            So let me give you a brief tour of Wichita, Kansas, in the heartland of America.

            As reported at World Net Daily:

            The Wichita school district…is now trying to cope with a new influx of immigrants from Central America and the Middle East. The new arrivals don’t speak English or Spanish, requiring costly interpreters and tutors to be brought in to help the immigrants learn. (snip)

            Because federal law requires schools to provide information to parents in their preferred language, an Arabic speaker is on call to help teachers and others communicate with families….

            …students speaking languages from Africa and the Middle East have increased dramatically in recent years…refugees from camps in central Africa, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.

            The school district appears to be falling in line quickly. In 2013 there was a large Five Pillars of Islam display in one the schools. A Jewish parent spoke out anonymously for fear reprisal. This is par for the course: Islamic indoctrination, whitewashing of Islam, and fear of reprisal. Kansas Watchdog reports:

            A concerned parent, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal against herself or her child, said if students are going to be taught about Islam, they should also be made aware of what she views as violent ideology.

            “If you’re not going to include all the facts, then there’s now a bias,” said the parent, who is Jewish.

            State Rep. Dennis Hedke also spoke out after he heard about the display:

            State Rep. Dennis Hedke, R-Wichita, said he was “appalled” when he first heard of the display. He said the way the school teaches about Islam glosses over some of the more unsavory aspects of the religion, such as Jihad and the annihilation of Israel.

            “If you’re going to talk about Islam and make it sound like it’s another one of those religions that needs to be understood and contemplated by mankind, there’s a serious misunderstanding,” Hedke said.

            The impact of Muslim invaders is found just about everywhere. As I recently reported for AT, it was Wichita State University where Muslim students asserted supremacy by having the chapel stripped of its pews, the altar, and all Christian décor. The bare room now has Muslim prayer rugs and some metal chairs set off to the side.

            But that’s just the beginning.

            Kansas. Home of the Wizard of Oz is now home to jihadists. As reported by in Front Page Magazine in 2013:

            …Terry Lee Loewen, an avionics technician at Wichita’s Mid-Continent Airport, was arrested that morning as he tried to drive a van that he thought was full of high explosives onto the tarmac at that airport, where he was planning to trigger it, causing what he hoped would be (as he put it in a letter to his wife) “maximum carnage + death.”

            Loewen wanted this to be yet another jihad mass murder attack on American soil, in which he would be, as he wrote in the same letter, “martyred in the path of Allah.”….

            He said that he wanted to “commit an act of violent jihad on behalf of al Qaeda” against the United States, even though he himself is an American: like many other converts to Islam who turn to jihad, his conversion signaled his rejection of his nation and people as Infidel, and his loyalty given instead to the supranational Islamic umma.

            This year Loewen was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for plotting to bomb the Wichita Airport. (Lord knows how many prisoners he’ll convert while incarcerated.)

            Other highlights of Muslims in Wichita include an FBI investigation into a possible water supply threat and a Muslim who hit and killed a man, then drove for 3 miles with the corpse on top of his car. We’ll never know if it was vehicular jihad or not.

            Then there was the proposal by Muslim leaders for what amounts to a 5-acre city block that would be a Muslim enclave, replete with a mosque, a bank, apartments, a medical complex, and other businesses and services for the Muslim community.

            Further documenting the Islamization of Wichita is a report from The Wichita Eagle:

            Currently, the bodies of many Muslims who die in the region must be taken to Wichita to be buried in a cemetery that better serves the religion, said Abdulkadir Mohamed, vice president of Somalis of Southwest Kansas….

            A growing number of Muslims, many from Somalia and Myanmar, have settled in southwest Kansas, mostly to work in four meatpacking plants within a 70-mile radius of Dodge City and Liberal….

            Will Wichita continue down this idiotic path? If they do, residents shouldn’t be surprised if they wake up one morning and find a scene like this outside their window. (For more information on the video embedded, see here.)

            (Of note, Kansas is not a Wilson-Fish State, which is good news for residents planning to take action to avert further influx of Muslims. We all must be vigilant about what is going on in our communities. If you’d like to learn more about “refugee resettlement,” your community, and what you can do to get involved, see here.)

            Hat tips: Refugee Resettlement Watch, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, Front Page

          • acontraryview

            So you have no basis for your statement that rapes will increase. Got it.

            What does any of Ms. Brown’s comments have to do with the protections provided by the 1st Amendment regarding religious expression?

          • afchief

            It is because of people like you, innocent people will die!!!


            Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

            Sweden has imported huge numbers of Muslim immigrants with catastrophic effect.

            Sweden’s population grew from 9 million to 9.5 million in the years 2004-2012, mainly due to immigration from “countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia”. 16 percent of all newborns have mothers born in non-Western countries. Employment rate among immigrants: 54 percent.

            Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

            In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. Now they are almost certainly even higher as Muslim immigrants continue forming a larger percentage of the population.

            With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

            The statistics are skewed by urban centers where the Islamic colonists cluster. In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day. Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim.

            Sweden, like the rest of the West, will have to come to terms with the fact that it can either have female equality or Muslim immigration. It cannot have both.

          • acontraryview

            Putting aside that the information incorrectly represents the statistics from Sweden, I’ll ask again: What does any of that have to do with the protections provided by the 1st Amendment?

          • afchief

            More proof that liberalism/homosexuality is a mental disorder!!! The truth just bounces off your cranium!!!

            Is Islam compatible with our Constitution? Yes or no?

          • acontraryview

            “Is Islam compatible with our Constitution? Yes or no?”

            When you say “compatible”, what exactly is it you are asking?

            There is no religion that is consistent with our Constitution. Each religion teaches that people should believe in only that religion and no others, which is inconsistent with the Constitution’s protections of religious expression. Each religion limits behavior, many of which are inconsistent with the protections provided by our Constitution.

            By their very nature, religious teachings are inconsistent with the protections provided by our Constitution, as they limit freedom.

          • afchief

            I swear dealing with liberals is like trying to educate a 5 year old!!!!

            For one, Islam is NOT a religion!!! It is an ideology. It hides under the disguise of religion.

            2, Muslims do not assimilate (it is against Islam).

            3. Most Muslims do not socialize with non-believers (it is against Islam).

            4. Large numbers of Muslims do not contribute to society, economically or culturally. They consume!

            5. Most Muslims do not do anything for non-believers.

            6. The majority of Muslims are taught to deceive, hate and kill unbelievers.

            And 7. Nowhere in the world have Muslims shown they can peacefully coexist with non-believers.

          • acontraryview

            Several of my coworkers are Muslim. You are mistaken on points 1 – 5.

            What is your basis for saying that “the majority of Muslims are taught to deceive, hate, and kill unbelievers”?

            Number 7 is simply false. Such peaceful coexisting is evident here is the US, In addition, two of the nations with the largest Muslim populations – Indonesia and Turkey – disprove your point.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Christianity gets along more-or-less with the Constitution; surprisingly there are ministers and pastors of various denominations who support separation of Church and State. But Islam? Hell no. If there was a majority of Muslims in any Democratic Country, the first thing they would want would be a referendum on Sharia; guaranteed 99.999% of them would vote for Sharia law and the removal of Democracy.

          • acontraryview

            “Hell no. If there was a majority of Muslims in any Democratic Country, the first thing they would want would be a referendum on Sharia; guaranteed 99.999% of them would vote for Sharia law and the removal of Democracy.”

            Then how do you explain that 35% of the world’s Muslims live in countries that, while predominately Muslim, are Democracies and are not run according to Sharia law?

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            “Then how do you explain that 35% of the world’s Muslims live in countries that…”

            I forgot to reply to this. Yes, there are a number of Democratic Muslim Countries (about 43 by a quick internet search), but the critical difference between those Countries and a potential Islamized Country in the heart of Europe is that the act of Muslims colonizing a European Country is an aggression; Muslim migration is Quranic; in Islamic teacing it is considered virtuous to follow the example of Muhammad and his journey (the “Hegira”) to Medina – a place originally named Yathrib before he invaded it.

            I know that sounds a bit abstract and senseless, which it totally is from the perspective of Westerners, but the Hegira is a big deal in Islam and they take it VERY seriously. And so should we since our Countries are their target.

            And how many good Muslim Democracies are there? Pakistan is a Democracy, but it’s a Country buried up to it’s eyeballs in fanatical religious dogma, it’s not what I would consider a real Democracy, it’s basically ruled the Islamic clergy and follows most of the tenets of Sharia. Turkey is an exception, but Turkey is in Europe – or on the border of Europe – and is a fairly eclectic Country with a mixed population. And I wouldn’t step foot in Turkey even if I were offered a free holiday there, those people are sleazy – and not in a good way.

            I think all Islamic Countries follow Sharia law to some degree, even in those Countries we tend to think of as allies – Egypt for example – there is massive support from the public for the implementation of Sharia, and it’s only by undemocratic Governmental policy that the will of the People is not honored. Thank goodness.

          • acontraryview

            “Yes, there are a number of Democratic Muslim Countries”

            Which means that your comment: “he first thing they would want would be a referendum on Sharia; guaranteed 99.999% of them would vote for Sharia law and the removal of Democracy.” is false.

            “I know that sounds a bit abstract and senseless”


            “but the Hegira is a big deal in Islam and they take it VERY seriously.”

            What religion does NOT support the idea of going forth and converting as many people as possible to live according to the tenets of that faith?

            “and follows most of the tenets of Sharia.”

            Such as?

            “those people are sleazy”

            Nice job of labeling all the people of Turkey as “sleazy”. What is your basis for suggesting that everyone in Turkey is “sleazy”.

            “I think all Islamic Countries follow Sharia law to some degree”

            For example? Perhaps you are too young to remember, but for years, many of our laws restricted the rights the citizens based upon the Christian belief system, and in some cases still do.

            “there is massive support from the public for the implementation of Sharia”

            So then how do you explain the massive protests that brought down Morsi?

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            The reason Sharia would be imposed in a European Country but not so much in a Middle-Eastern of African Country is because an Islamized Country in Western Europe would be a foothold, and there is a deep-rooted sentiment in Islam that Europe must be destroyed; you don’t achieve that with half-measures.

            You probably don’t see the Muslim presence in Europe as malevolent, and sure there are lots of Muslims who are quite normal people, but mosques are going up everywhere and inside every mosque is an Imam, reinforcing the word of the Qur’an and reminding Muslims to isolate themselves from the kuffar and work towards the spread of Islam.

            According to PEW, France has a population of 7.5% Muslim, and my own Country (the UK) has a Muslim population of almost 5% – that’s not including undocumented immigrants. That’s a lot of people, and most of them come from a culture that is chalk to cheese next to Western culture. They come with a ready-made set of values and behaviors and laws forever separate from those of the people into whose cultures they have come.

            Turkey.. long story involving the history of Turkey. It’s not important.

            The limitations imposed by Christianity – such as the ban on abortion in Ireland – are bad but Shariah dials it up to 11. They kill children and chop limbs off. Pick and Islamic Country and you’ll find it has a horrifying list of human rights violations – Turkey included.

            I don’t really remember the protests against Mohamed Morsi, although I do remember something being discussed about it on BBC Newsnight about how things were more complicated and messy than they appeared. I don’t know. What I do knows is that Islamic fundamentalism is still rife there, but I can agree that there are some halfway decent people in Egypt; the thing is, some people remain moral and intelligent despite their religious upbringing; I forget who said it but someone coined the phrase “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.”

          • acontraryview

            “and there is a deep-rooted sentiment in Islam that Europe must be destroyed”

            Please cite your basis for that statement. Are you suggesting that the majority of Muslims believe that Europe must be destroyed? Are you suggesting that if we hooked up Muslims here in the US, as well as those in Europe, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc., to a lie detector and asked them: “Must Europe be destroyed” that a significant majority would either answer yes, or those who answered no it would show they are lying?

            “Imam, reinforcing the word of the Qur’an”

            You mean like preachers, pastors, and priests do in Christian churches regarding Christianity?

            “and reminding Muslims to isolate themselves from the kuffar”

            And you know that in every mosque the Imam is telling the members to isolate themselves from kaffar, how? Have you gone to these mosques? Have you heard this? If that is true, then why do Muslims in the US and Europe NOT isolate themselves? Why do they shop, work, and interact socially with kaffar? You can certainly find references in the Bible directing Christians not to associate with unbelievers. Do you think that is preached in every Christian church?

            “and work towards the spread of Islam.”

            And that would differ from the goals of other religious beliefs, how?

            “They kill children and chop limbs off. Pick and Islamic Country and you’ll find it has a horrifying list of human rights violations – Turkey included.”

            I am no proponent nor fan of Sharia law. It is abhorrent on many levels. With that said, it is simply unreasonable to suggest that Muslims, as a group, want to live under Sharia law and want to impose it on the world. There are certainly those who want to, but it simply does not represent the majority of Muslims.

            Surely you realize that there are Orthodox Jews who would prefer that laws reflected their beliefs – and in some places they do regarding the freedoms of citizens. There are also places where Orthodox Christian beliefs serves as a basis for laws and restricts the freedom of citizens.

            “but I can agree that there are some halfway decent people in Egypt”

            Seriously dude?

            Given that you are from the UK, perhaps you are unfamiliar with our history in the US of Christianity being used as a basis for limiting the freedoms of citizens. That yolk is slowly being lifted, but it was quite heavy at times.

          • afchief

            It is because of people like you, innocent people will die!!!!


            About 20 years ago I lived in the Netherlands. Amsterdam to be precise. I don’t know if it is still the same but finding decent affordable accommodation in Amsterdam is an onerous task – especially when you are on a budget, as I was. After some difficulty, I did find a fairly decent flat, but I left it, in the middle of the night, with my rucksack and all my possessions, because my landlord did not understand, nor did he want to accept, that I wasn’t interested in a sexual relationship with him.

            Fast forward eight months or so, and I am living in a new flat with a female friend of mine. Late one night, while my friend and I were sitting talking in her room, someone let himself in. He immediately decided to take his trousers off and walk in to the bedroom with a stupid “entitled” grin on his face. We left the flat, there and then, with our rucksacks and all our possessions. So, twice within a year I had to leave the place I lived because of nasty little men who thought they had every right to treat women as if we owe them sex.

            In both cases, the landlords were Moroccan immigrants who had not long been living in Holland. On a separate occasion, a taxi driver drove past several times while I was walking with a friend in central Amsterdam. He threw a rather grim present out the window at us. It didn’t hit us.

            Much more recently, I travelled from Copenhagen to Malmo by train. Only moments after the train entered Swedish territory, I was witness to what I can only assume to be representative of the new Sweden: a young blonde woman was jogging and had the misfortune of passing a group of men (I have been heavily criticised for describing them as “Middle Eastern-looking men” but that is what they were) who proceeded immediately to harass her – blocking her way, shouting, grabbing their genitals. Soon afterwards, in the centre of Malmo, I was treated to a “pro-Palestinian” rally which I have no doubt at all was attended by many a Jew-hating Islamist, as is common in the new Sweden.

            Readers will be more than aware that Sweden has become Europe’s rape capital. Its government has blamed this on everything from increased reporting to the internet to the weather. Norway and Denmark also have some rather alarming rates of rape, but those countries are more readily willing to admit the cause.

            In Norway, recent statistics revealed that 100 per cent of violent street-rapes committed in the capital city of Oslo were committed by “non-western” immigrants. It’s a similar story in Denmark, where the majority of rapes are committed by immigrants, usually Muslim.

            In England, it’s been rape after rape – tens of thousands of young British girls are brutalised, tortured, beaten and raped by organised gangs comprised almost exclusively of Muslims. And now we have Germany. When Chancellor Merkel threw open the doors of her country to hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Middle East and Africa, she opened the door to the rape of German women.

            Rape and sexual assault (as well as forced prostitution) is rampant within the refugee camps in Germany, and it has spilled out to the nearby towns. Rape in Germany has already been described as an “epidemic” and one that the German authorities, and media, are keeping rather quiet about. The reality is that German authorities, who know that many of these asylum seekers are rapists, will allow those men to live freely among German women – they have decided to allow German women to be raped, just like authorities all across Europe.

            Women of Europe must understand what is happening here. This is not Page Three, or a Carry On film sexist joke (for the record, I wouldn’t be without my Carry On collection); this is a truly brutal hatred of women that demands we are slaves and absolutely believes it has the right to rape women who don’t submit. The men think of women this way because that is where they come from, that is what they know.

            Reports reveal that the bulk of “asylum seekers” now piling in to Europe are from countries including Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and other places where women are treated appallingly as a matter of course. It’s not the “extreme fringe” or a “tiny minority”; it is the norm, the mainstream, and the law of the land.

            It’s true, women are abused everywhere, but in most countries it’s against the law. In Islamic states, it is the law.

            Many of the men on their way to Europe were raised, as in Pakistan, to believe that a woman who isn’t all-but invisible is asking to be raped. On the legal books in Pakistan, a woman can be stoned to death for being a victim of rape. What on earth do we expect from the bulk of men who grow up under these rules? How will they view women, and rape? And what on earth do we expect to happen when they come en masse to Europe? They will suddenly become feminists en route? No, they bring this misogyny with them, and it’s a misogyny that Europe’s women are about to become very familiar with. Migrants leave behind many things when they leave their country. Their beliefs are not among them.

            In a letter to the German government, women’s rights activists described how some men in refugee camps “regard women as their inferior and treat unaccompanied women as “fair game”.

            Our leaders are now allowing men from violent misogynistic cultures, where women are stoned to death for being raped, to come to Europe in massive numbers. They’re allowing known rapists to mingle freely with European women. They know what this will mean for our safety, but they do it anyway. A Swedish lawyer recently explained exactly why this is.

            Following the brutal rape of a dying woman in Stockholm, the prosecution did not attempt to deport the rapist and claimed that this Somali citizen could not be removed because he would present a danger to the women of his home country. It mattered not a jot the danger he presented to Swedish women, because in the new Europe, Europeans matter far less than migrants. Ingrid Carlqvist wrote recently: “the destitute Swedish senior citizen must choose between paying 100,000 kronor ($12,000) to get new teeth or living toothless, a person who does not even have the right to stay in Sweden can get his teeth fixed for 50 kronor ($6)”. In Germany, property has been confiscated from German citizens to be handed over to migrants. According to Carlqvist, this is on the cards in Sweden as well.

            In response to the rape epidemic, European authorities have decided to follow the Islamic way entirely; they’ve decided to place restrictions on the freedoms of their own women, rather than the freedoms of known rapists. In Germany, women were advised not to travel to and from the train station unaccompanied.

            So there you have it, the removal of a woman’s most basic freedom – the freedom to go about her business in safety – is the German authorities’ solution to rape. Young girls have been told not to wear shorts in another German town, because this might lead to misunderstandings (“misunderstanding” is Newspeak for rape in progressive modern Germany).

            So it is the girls who have their freedoms removed, and the emphasis is placed on their behaviour, while rapists are permitted to run free. This is only the start. Will girls be prevented from playing sports to avoid “misunderstandings”? Just how much freedom are our leaders going to give away to appease Muslim men? We’ve already handed over free speech, now it’s time to hand over women’s freedom.

            It should come as no surprise that free speech has disappeared in Europe as the Muslim population has grown.

            We know about the shootings, and the stabbings, the politicians on the run, and the forbidden cartoons, but now Angela Merkel wants to prevent us from expressing any negative view of her suicidal immigration policy. We found out recently that the Chancellor has had a quiet word in the ear of Mark Zuckerberg about keeping that dreadful racist disapproval far away from the pages of Facebook.

            You’ve got to wonder – why on earth would Europe’s leaders do this to their own people? What is causing this?

            Some have told me it is stupidity, short-sightedness, or even insanity, but it isn’t – it’s hatred.

            This is all part of a broad-ranging, virulent, and vicious hatred of the West, and of Western people (especially white Western people).

            The Western world is dominated by leaders who despise its history and its heritage and are determined to bring an end to its power. They wish to extinguish Western culture, and opening the borders is a hell of a good start.

            Merkel recognised that she was changing Germany beyond all recognition and that the Germany we know today will not exist for much longer. Much worse is that she considers this a positive thing. What does that tell us about her attitude towards the country she leads? The same can be said for the Swedes, who have leaders who praise the way of life of immigrants (regardless of the misogyny etc.), while telling native Swedes that they don’t even have a way of life.

            The West is being disarmed – to demolish our cultures, our leaders are persuading us that there is nothing within them that is worthy of defence. Our identity is expendable.

            Examples of attacks on European or Western identity are too numerous to mention.

            There is also vast inconsistency with regard to national or ethnic identity. Just look at the difference in how the Left – which is behind all of this – views nationalism. Scottish nationalism here in Britain is applauded by the Left, as is Welsh and Irish, but English nationalism – however mild – must be suffocated at birth (even flying the English flag can be controversial in England). Thus we know that the Left is not against national identity per se, just when the big Western powers are involved.

            Jamaica recently demanded that the British pay them billions of pounds in compensation for slavery. But what about slavery today? Why not focus on that? Furthermore, why just the West? Why not hold to account the Islamic countries which also traded in slaves for centuries (and some still do today)? What about the black Africans who colluded in the Atlantic slave trade, selling off their own people? Will Jamaica be claiming reparation from them? No, because this isn’t about slavery at all, it’s about attacking Western powers, for which they’ll get an enormous helping hand from the Left.

            The biggest problem we’ve got is that our leaders are of the same bent, and believe that the West, and only the West, deserves to be perpetually punished for its past crimes.

            In stark contrast to today’s culturally suicidal politicians, I believe strongly that the Swedish government, the German government, and the British government ought to unequivocally and without reluctance put the best interests of their own people first – that means keeping rapists out, as well as refusing entry to those who violently threaten our right to speak. This isn’t because I think Westerners are entitled to more protection than other people. Contrary to what my enemies would love to believe, I do actually care about women in the most misogynistic countries in the world, but we do nothing to advance the cause of women’s rights globally by destroying the rights of Western women – quite the opposite in fact.

            The reason a government ought to put its own people first gets right to the heart of nation-state democracy; the duty owed by the elected to the elector. Politicians should answer to those who elect them – it is the purpose of the vote. This is something the Left rejects of course because it rejects the freedom (specifically the market freedom) that nation-state democracy inevitably constructs, and sadly the Left is now calling the shots.

            Make no mistake, Westerners are about to be made to suffer, and the reason is that our leaders fully believe that we deserve to.

          • Cosmic Mastermind

            Yes, but frankly there are – no exaggeration – hundreds of millions of Muslims who do have much the same sentiment.

          • acontraryview

            Basis for your hundreds of millions number?

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Considering how much you like to quote the oroginal text of the Constitution, verbatim, devoid of any context, precedent, or clarification, can you show me where in the First Amendment that the Free Exercise Clause is conditional?

      • afchief

        Immigration without assimilation is an invasion. Muslims do not assimilate, period.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Yeah, that’s nice.

          Are you going to answer the question now? When is it constitutional for the government to shut down any house of worship? Since when? On what authority?

          • afchief

            What will it take for brain dead liberals to wake up? 10,000 dead? 100,000? 1,000,000? Wake up!!! Islamic immigration should be halted immediately and permanently. All Muslims who are not citizens should be quickly rounded up and summarily deported. Those Muslims who already are citizens should be required to formally and specifically denounce fundamental Islam and all violent and unlawful (e.g. sharia law, etc.) practices of Islam. Those not willing to do so and not willing to reaffirm their oath to our Constitution and country over Islam should immediately lose their citizenship and be deported. If we truly want to excise this sociopolitical cancer, this is the hard line we must take.

            Islam is not compatible with western culture or our Constitution, period!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, we’re settled. You’re not going to even attempt to answer my question, then. Got it.

          • afchief

            Just did!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The question is, under what conditions is the government constitutionally permitted to close citizens’ houses of worship. I’m still waiting for an answer.

            Let’s go. Cite some precedent. Quote case law. Don’t just rant and rave accusations about Muslims and their supposed behavior.

          • xinthose

            It’s not. But our forefathers never imagined a religion capable of destroying the country. If it gets to that point, then we deserve it anyway

          • afchief

            I already answered you! Would we have allowed Germans and Japanese to immigrate to the US during WW II?

          • JGC

            When did Congress issue a declaration of war with Syria, afchief?

          • afchief

            What does that got to do with anything? Can you guarantee that none of these Muslims are terrorists?

          • JGC

            You tell me, afchief. You’re the one whose brought up whether we’d have allowed people to immigrate from a country we were at war with–you explain the relevance.

          • afchief

            I swear liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!! There is no other explanation for the stupidity!!!! Hey genius, tell me who is going to pay for these refugees? Who is going to house them? What state or city wants them? 0lawless and his policy on immigration is literally suicidal; no nation can take in people who have no intention of becoming one with that nation but instead come with the intention of exploiting their welfare systems and overrunning the country and its government.

            You brain dead liberals believe these “immigrants” and “refugees” will assimilate into their cultures and that their welfare handouts are “temporary assistance.” You are DEAD WRONG!!!. Those handouts are simply taken as a means of supporting the production of as many children as these “refugees” are able to produce and these immigrants and their children will utterly refuse to become American — at best they hyphenate their claimed nationality and at worst they don’t even bother with doing that.

            Yes liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • JGC

            ” Hey genius, tell me who is going to pay for these refugees? Who is going to house them?”

            Other nations have already taken in large numbers of Syrian refugees: Turkey has taken in 2.2 million, Lebanon 1.1 million and Jordan 630 thousand. The impact on their economies has been marginal. For example, the cost associated with taking in 2.2 million refugees represents 0.2% of Turkey’s annual GDP of ~ 800 billion dollars. The US is talking about taking in 10,000 Syrian immigrants and as of September 30th its 2015 GDP was 16.4 TRILLION dollars. Funding isn’t the issue: it’s having the political will to do what’s right.

            As to over-running the country recall again we’re talking about taking in 10,000 refugees, many of whom are women and children. They couldn’t overrun Rhode Island, let alone the entire nation.

          • afchief

            We bring these so-called “refugees” into the country and then pay them to live. This means they can sit at home and reproduce like rabbits, and we will fund them to do that. So guess what they’ll do? Exactly that; producing three, four, five, six or more kids.

            But there’s a problem with importing “refugees” to “fix” this demographic disaster: Those people have no intention of funding the pension and medical promises made to our citizens nor will they assimilate into our culture. What they will do is take all the handouts we will give them, making as many children as we’re willing to pay them to create, and indoctrinate them with their culture. They will work in the underground economy which not only fails to contribute to the tax base but worse, tends to intersect with criminal elements that we’d rather not stoke (like, for example, running guns to drug lords.)

            It is our social welfare policy that makes this sort of invasion possible and it is foisted on the people in the name of “compassion”; this looks exactly nothing like the sort of positive and functional immigration that this nation was built through.

            Your ancestors probably came through Ellis Island but none of them had access to any sort of “social safety net” that paid them to produce children and funded their every life need and want. We did that over the last fifty years and what we got for it is an explosion of Mexicans living off everyone else and now a bunch of so-called “refugees” that are nearly all fighting-age men.

            Our policy on immigration is literally suicidal; no nation can take in people who have no intention of becoming one with that nation but instead come with the intention of exploiting their welfare systems and overrunning the country and its government.

            That’s what’s going on here, these people are not stupid, but those in Washington are. They believe these “immigrants” and “refugees” will assimilate into their cultures and that their welfare handouts are “temporary assistance.” They, and yoy, are wrong. Those handouts are simply taken as a means of supporting the production of as many children as these “refugees” are able to produce and yet both these immigrants and their children utterly refuse to American — at best they hyphenate their claimed nationality and at worst they don’t even bother with doing that.

          • JGC

            I’m not aware of anything in current immigration law that would require we support the refugees we take in indefinitely while they raise families—what makes you think this is the case?

            “Those people have no intention of funding the pension and
            medical promises made to our citizens nor will they assimilate into our
            culture. What they will do is take all the handouts we will give them, making as many children as we’re willing to pay them to create, and indoctrinate them with their culture.”
            That hasn’t been the case with any of the other refuges we’ve
            accepted from other conflicts (for example, the Vietnamese community following the fall of Saigon). What evidence indicates it will be the case in this instance?

            ‘We did that over the last fifty years and what we got for it is an explosion of Mexicans living off everyone else and now a bunch of so-called “refugees” that are nearly all fighting-age men.”
            Your evidence that we suffered “an explosion of Mexicans
            living off everyone else” as the result of taking in Mexican refuges would be what, exactly? Be specific.

            “Our policy on immigration is literally suicidal; no nation
            can take in people who have no intention of becoming one with that nation but instead come with the intention of exploiting their welfare systems and overrunning the country and its government.”
            Your evidence that the Syrian refuges have no such
            intention and instead intend to overrun our nation and government would be what, exactly? Be specific. (I trust you’ve something more to offer than the suggestion “We all KNOW what they’re like.”)

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism truly is a mental disorder with posts like this!!!! You need to OPEN your closed liberal eyes!!!! The problem with this administration is that they don’t enforce the law and instead violate it daily for political purposes. 0lawless and his cronies want to integrate these leeches into our country knowing they won’t assimilate and will become Demon voters. They don’t care if these people destroy the communities they move into. They don’t care about the crime that comes with them. Everything that this administration has done in the past 7 years has hurt America and this is the final straw. In many cases, their cultures are violent and will not mix with western values. In Africa, Muslims raping women in the middle of a street is common and how many children have been murdered in the middle east for disobeying their father? These cultures are ingrained in these people and will never change. We need to remove any and all benefits from non-citizens to kill their desire to come here. You bleeding hearts need to wake up and realize that there is no simple fix to the refugee issue. Building camps in their own country’s is the most optimum choice. Of course 90% of the money spent on them will be stolen.

          • JGC

            Afchief, could you perhaps spend less time on meaningless ad
            hominems “Liberalism is a mental disorder” and at least some time on supporting your claims, and more time responding substantively rather than simply offering more unsupported assertions.

            “In Africa, Muslims raping women in the middle of a street
            is common”

            Citations needed, please”.What evidence suggests this is common,
            and in what African nations? What does the word ‘common’ even mean here (i.e., what percentage of all Muslim men are known to have raped a woman in the middle of a street, how often do such rapes occur, how does this number compare to the that non-Muslim men in the same nations who are known to have raped women in the middle of a street?

            “and how many children have been murdered in the middle east for disobeying their father?”

            I don’t know—how many, and what is the source for your

          • afchief

            You know why? Because you liberals do NOT think!!! You have NO rational or logical thought!!! It is ALL emotional with you liberals, period!!! Your stupidity gets people killed!!!!

            April 11, 2013 Raymond Ibrahim

            Earlier this week a video began circulating on Arabic-language websites purportedly showing a crowd of Muslims in Egypt assaulting and raping two Christian women—on a crowded street and in broad daylight. The video opens with Muslim men repeatedly shouting the word “Nasara”—the Koran’s derogatory appellation for “Christians”—as they identify two Coptic women who proceed to scream and run, only to be knocked to the ground by several Muslim men who savagely attack them, strip their clothing, and try to gang rape them. Throughout, the women scream in terror while the men shout “Allahu Akbar,” that is, “Allah is Great,” as well as chant the shehada, or Islamic profession of faith: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.” None of the many passersby intervene in any way.

            Little other information about the video accompanies the Arabic sites posting it. So I did some searching; apparently the events recorded in the video occurred in 2009. As for the context, I found a pro-Muslim article titled (in translation) “The truth about the video of Coptic girls raped in the street.” Here I expected to encounter denial and dissemble, claims that the video was a “hoax,” that these are not even Egyptians, etc., etc. Surprisingly, the article confirmed the authenticity of the video and what it depicts. The main quibble it offered was that the video was in fact made in 2009 and that the Coptic activists who recently uploaded it are troublemakers trying to create “sectarian strife.”

            Much more interesting are the arguments the article makes to justify the rape of Christians: it claims that Muslim rage (for this particular incident) was prompted by accusations that a Coptic man had raped a Muslim girl. Accordingly, Muslims were merely retaliating in like manner (along with raping Christian girls, Muslims also rioted, burned, and destroyed Christian shops and homes, as is customary).

            Of course, even if all this is true—if Muslims were merely exercising “an eye for an eye” logic—the ultimate significance of the video is this: If a Coptic man raped a Muslim woman, he certainly did not do so in accordance to any Christian teaching. He did it as a base man exercising base instincts—instincts which have nothing to do with race or religion.

            On the other hand, what are we to make of Muslims screaming Islam’s two most distinct slogans—“Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” and Islam’s very profession of faith, “there is no god but Allah”—while raping Christian women? What does that say about Islam, or at least how Muslims—from the videotaped rapists to the Muslim clerics who issue fatwas permitting rape—understand Islam?

            The brief video follows. No English subtitles are necessary, for all the sounds made are universally intelligible—cries and screams from Christian women and “Allahu Akbars” from Muslim men—the universal sounds of suffering on the one hand, and supremacism on the other.

            I will NOT post the video!!! It will make you sick!!!!

          • JGC

            So you’re extrapolating from one extreme incident occurring
            in 2009 perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists—the same people the Syrian refugees are fleeing from—to conclude that such behavior must not only be endemic in their society but also that the refugees must inevitably behave similarly? Have I got that right?

          • afchief

            I would advise you to go study Islam as I have. I have spent 3 years of my life in Muslim countries while I was in the military. I have seen it first hand.

            Islam is not a religion but an ideology.

          • JGC

            To no greater extent than Judaism or Christianity are also seized upon by extremists within those traditions as ideologies.

          • afchief

            OMG!!! More proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • JGC

            Explain how my statement above supports that characterization, afchief.

          • afchief

            Because I am sick of so called liberals lying and mis-characterising the Crusades as Christian aggression. Which is where you are going with your response.

            It is a boldface lie!!!

          • JGC

            There’s no need to go as far back as the Crusades or the Inquisition to support my point, although they are apt examples. I was thinking more
            about the multiple conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in England between1500 and 1625.

          • afchief

            They may say they are Christians, but they are not!

          • JGC

            “No True Scotsman”? That’s really the best you can do?

          • afchief

            Islam has never been subject to the 1st Amendment. It is a political cult bent upon subjugation of America and replacing our Constitution with shariah law. Throw them all out of the country!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, finally. After all of your bile spewing rants, you’ve finally managed to land on something that at least attempts to answer the question.

            Unfortunately, you’re still wrong. Islam is definitely included in the First Amendment. For instance, Murfreesboro Mosque v. Rutherford County.

          • afchief

            I swear dealing with liberals is like trying to educate a 5 year old!!!!

            For one, Islam is NOT a religion!!! It is an ideology. It hides under the disguise of religion.

            2, Muslims do not assimilate (it is against Islam).

            3. Most Muslims do not socialize with non-believers (it is against Islam).

            4. Large numbers of Muslims do not contribute to society, economically or culturally. They consume!

            5. Most Muslims do not do anything for non-believers.

            6. The majority of Muslims are taught to deceive, hate and kill unbelievers.

            And 7. Nowhere in the world have Muslims shown they can peacefully coexist with non-believers.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Aaaand now we’re off topic again.

            For those of you following along at home, afchief asserted that the First Amendment has never been held to apply to Islam. I proved him wrong, and instead of discussing the matter with me, calmly, like adults, he went off on another irrelevant rant.

          • afchief

            I swear dealing with liberals is like trying to educate a 5 year old!!!!

            Shariah is Anti-Constitutional

            Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as “dawa” (the “call to Islam”), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

            the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

            the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

            freedom of conscience; individual liberty

            freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

            economic liberty (including private property);

            equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

            freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate “resistance”); and

            an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as “civilization jihad” must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.

            America’s Founders and Islam

            America’s earliest presidents best understood these founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.

            In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.

            Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

            “We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

            “The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

            John Adams’ son and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, whose formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers further insights into the early presidents’ views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy’s threat doctrine.

            John Quincy Adams’ 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then – and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

            “…[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…. The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

            “The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

            “The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

            “This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them – the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

            “The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike – all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.”

            In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation’s founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with – and imperiled by – some “radical” or “extreme” version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America – even through stealthy means or democratic processes – without violating the Constitution’s Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the land.”

            Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America’s elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups’ increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah’s tenets, its core attributes – especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible.

          • afchief

            Where Islam is incompatible with the US Constitution is

            1) sharia advocates for cruel and unusual punishment;
            2) rights in sharia depend upon a religious test;
            3) no equal rights under law.

            Encouraging people to come to the US, become citizens, and yet believe in sharia creates a house divided against itself that cannot stand. How that circle could be squared by leftists is beyond me.

          • afchief

            Shariah law stands diametrically opposed to everything embodied in The Constitution, our republican form of government, and the American way of life and living. Thus, anyone who advocates shariah law poses a clear and present danger to America and the American people. It has no place here. None

          • afchief

            barack hussein obama is a terrorist appeaser and thinks spewing out lies will get him praise, not from sane american, only those fools who are blind, deaf and dumb to the danger he wants to impose on us American citizens. obama is Americas number one enemy and has always been a member of the murdering muslim brotherhood. For almost seven years all this liar obama has done is to make our country the laughing stock of the world. Vladimir Putin thinks of him as a little BOY in a mans world, and Benjamin Netanyahu fights terrorism and loves his country and it’s people and obama hate him for doing so. Just look at the ones obama loves and protects.

            Subject: We just can’t figure out who’s causing the problem

            We Can’t Seem To Pinpoint The Problem

            The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim

            The Beltway Snipers were Muslims

            The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim

            The underwear Bomber was a Muslim

            The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims

            The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims

            The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims

            The London Subway Bombers were Muslims

            The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims

            The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims

            The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims

            The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims

            The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims

            The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims

            The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims

            The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims

            The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims

            The Kenyan US, Embassy Bombers were Muslims

            The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims

            The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims

            The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims

            The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims

            The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims

            The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims

            The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

            Think of it:

            Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem

            Hindus living with Christians = No Problem

            Hindus living with Jews = No Problem

            Christians living with Shintos = No Problem

            Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem

            Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem

            Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem

            Jews living with Atheists = No Problem

            Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem

            Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem

            Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem

            Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem

            Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem

            Christians living with Jews = No Problem

            Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem

            Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem

            Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem

            Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem

            Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

            Muslims living with Hindus = Problem

            Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem

            Muslims living with Christians = Problem

            Muslims living with Jews = Problem

            Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem

            Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem

            Muslims living with Shintos = Problem

            Muslims living with Atheists = Problem


            **********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************

            They’re not happy in Gaza

            They’re not happy in Egypt

            They’re not happy in Libya

            They’re not happy in Morocco

            They’re not happy in Iran

            They’re not happy in Iraq

            They’re not happy in Yemen

            They’re not happy in Afghanistan

            They’re not happy in Pakistan

            They’re not happy in Syria

            They’re not happy in Lebanon

            They’re not happy in Nigeria

            They’re not happy in Kenya

            They’re not happy in Sudan

            ******** So, where are they happy? **********

            They’re happy in Australia

            They’re happy in England

            They’re happy in Belgium

            They’re happy in France

            They’re happy in Italy

            They’re happy in Germany

            They’re happy in Sweden

            They’re happy in the USA & Canada

            They’re happy in Norway & India

            They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame?

            Not Islam…

            Not their leadership…

            Not themselves …


            And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy!

            ******** So, What are their Major Organizations? **********

            Islamic Jihad : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION










            Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

            Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

            Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION


            Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

            Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

            And we just can’t figure out who’s causing the problem!!!

          • Martin Smit

            Your question did not engage the comment, therefore does not merit a reply. If you have something to say, you should say it.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He was advocating a policy. I asked how he could justify thathe policy under the Constitution. I think the question is very relevant.

            Are you going to dictate how I engage in discussion now? Are you going to insist that I put every comment in the form of the statement? Fine. “Your policy is unconstitutional.”

    • Elie Challita

      The first amendment states: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, etc.

      Would closing a house of worship qualify as impeding the free exercise of religion, chief?

      • afchief

        Silly liberal, Islam is not a religion. It is an ideology!!!

        Muslims do not assimilate (it is against Islam).
        Muslims do not socialize with non-believers (it is against Islam).
        Large numbers of Muslims do not contribute to society, economically or culturally.
        Muslims do not do anything for non-believers.
        All Muslims are taught to deceive, hate and kill unbelievers.
        Nowhere in the world have Muslims shown they can peacefully coexist with non-believers.

        • Elie Challita

          So by your definition, are any US citizens who identify as Christians first and Americans second to be considered traitors as well?

          • afchief

            Christians believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. Muslims do not. If Christians break the law, then they should be punished accordingly.

          • Elie Challita

            That’s still a double standard: Should Christian churches be closed down if they are pushing beliefs contrary to the current law of the land?

          • afchief

            It’s not a double standard. It’s is quite apparent you have no understanding of Islam. None!

            Be more specific! What laws are you talking about? Homosexuality? It is NOT the law of the land. It is an opinion by the SCOTUS and nothing more.

          • Elie Challita

            Oh god, here we go again: Is homosexuality illegal?

          • afchief

            I said be more specific!!!

          • Elie Challita

            I am. Now answer the question: Is homosexuality illegal in the US?

          • afchief

            You said “Should Christian churches be closed down if they are pushing beliefs contrary to the current law of the land?”

            I asked you to be more specific! What laws are you talking about?

  • acontraryview

    “strongly consider”

    Consider it all you want Donald, but it would still be unconstitutional.

    • Cosmic Mastermind

      I’m with Donald Trump on this one – I despise the man but even so, I agree. Islam is not simply a religion, it is a mix of religious and political ideology, and no mosque is free from that side of Islam; you cannot Constitutionally ban religious places of worship, but a mosque is also a center for Fascist indoctrination and propaganda; and that you can legitimately shut down.

      • acontraryview

        “it is a mix of religious and political ideology”

        Political ideology in what way?

        “but a mosque is also a center for Fascist indoctrination and propaganda; and that you can legitimately shut down.”

        Really? So you can shut down a mosque, or any other place, because they discuss Fascism and promote propaganda? Wouldn’t doing that be a form of Fascism?

      • Elie Challita

        You could say the same for quite a few evangelical churches. Do you support closing them down too?

        • Cosmic Mastermind

          I am much less concerned by Christian churches, but yes, the principle is the same and I would like to see a number of those kind of churches closed down. They’re free to spout all the nonsensical BS they want, but when church leaders are engaged in fraud and cultism, or organizing criminal activities, something should be done.

          • Elie Challita

            You get points for consistency, in that case. Let’s start with a few megachurches, shall we?

  • Nofun

    We have more domestic terrorism from the religious right than Islam so you must agree that right wing christian churches must be closed, surely.

    • The Watcher

      You should get prepared for the next election. You’re not going to like the results.

  • Martin Smit

    Not a friend of true religion, and yet the enemy of false religion?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Shutting down mosques wouldn’t stop terrorism. If the would-be terrorists were using mosques as a cover, a meeting place, they would choose another one. Islam is a pagan religion and the demons who promote it don’t need the building, just the willingness of people to believe and act upon its lies. This is true for all pagan religions and even those who claim not to be religious at all.

    Don’t let politicians fool you with their rhetoric, whether Republican or Democrat. The same people controlling the government now will be the same people controlling it when a new POTUS is elected.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

  • BarkingDawg

    I’m surprised that Trump didn’t suggest that we require all Muslims to register with the government and to wear red crescents on their clothes.

  • Rebecca

    Given islam’s active carrying out of what their book teaches, that may not be a bad idea.

  • Elie Challita

    Could someone please explain to me how this does not qualify as impeding the free exercise of religion? Is the first amendment still a thing these days, or did conservatives unilaterally decide that they are the only worthy recipients of religious freedom?