Orlando Shooting

Trump Reiterates His Call for a Ban on Muslim Immigrants Because a Tiny Percentage Are 'Implicated in Terrorism'

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee exaggerates both the number of immigrants and the number who pose a domestic threat.


Trump campaign

Donald Trump says yesterday's attack on a gay night club in Orlando, which was carried out by the son of Afghan immigrants, shows the wisdom of his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States. "What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning," the presumptive Republican presidential nominee declared on Twitter. "Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough." In a separate statement on his campaign website, Trump said:

We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.

Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term—and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.

Taking Trump at his word, it looks like very few immigrants from the Middle East are involved in terrorism. He claims that 100,000 Middle Eastern immigrants legally enter the United States each year, which means something like 1.5 million have arrived since the 9/11 attacks, and that "hundreds of migrants and their children" have been "implicated in terrorism" during the same period. That means no more than 0.07 percent of immigrants from the Middle East either are accused of involvement in terrorism or have children who are. In that light, a total ban on Muslims entering the United States (including Muslims from outside the Middle East) looks like overkill, to say the least.

But Trump seems to be exaggerating both the number of immigrants from the Middle East and the number involved in "terrorism in the United States." According to the State Department, about 28,000 immigrant visas were issued to people from the Middle East last year, and during the previous nine years the number never exceeded 32,000. Including refugees and asylees from the Middle East would add another 23,000 or so, making the total for last year around 51,000, still far short of the "more than 100,000" claimed by Trump. 

Either way, the percentage of Middle Eastern migrants tied to terrorism (either directly or through their children) is minuscule. Furthermore, it's not clear what Trump means by "implicated in terrorism in the United States." Although that phrasing makes it sound like these immigrants were involved in planning or executing attacks within the United States, that does not seem to be the case for most of them.

Last December, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a leading Trump supporter, released a list of about three dozen immigrants, refugees, and legal visitors who were "recently implicated in terrorist activities," only one-third of whom were accused of planning or carrying out attacks against targets in the United States. Sessions' list included charges or incidents from 2012 through 2015, and it featured defendants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Ghana, Sudan, Morocco, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan as well as several Middle Eastern countries. But assuming that Trump's idea of "implicated in terrorism in the United States" is similar to Sessions', the percentage of Middle Eastern immigrants who pose a threat to targets in the United States is even tinier than his numbers imply.

I have contacted the Trump campaign about the sources of his numbers and will update this post if and when I receive a response.

Update: Washington Post fact checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee note that about 76,000 people from Middle Eastern countries were granted permanent resident status in 2014. "You get to around 100,000 only by including Afghanistan and Pakistan, which of course are outside the traditional 'Middle East,'" they write. Even if you ignore that distinction, it is still not true that "we admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year," as Trump said in his statement. In a subsequent speech, he changed the phrasing: "Each year, the United States permanently admits more than 100,000 immigrants from the Middle East, and many more from Muslim countries outside the Middle East." That's closer to the truth, assuming the government "permanently admits" an immigrant not when he arrives but when he gets his green card, although Trump still has to count Afghanistan and Pakistan as Middle Eastern countries.

NEXT: Americans Are Living Healthier Longer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, NPR has lost its freaking mind this morning, let’s try Reason out…

    1. I’m afraid to ask what it was like.

      1. Two interviews with Hillary Clinton– you know, to get the serious perspective. It took them exactly 4 seconds to send their fleet of Prius’ out on the street and find American Muslims worried about the inevitable hate-crime laden backlash (which never seems to come). They covered the Tony awards which I guess took the moment to rage against the situation– which wasn’t bad but did become a bit cringe-worthy. Then they reported that it was Latin Dance night at Pulse and so took the time to remind us that not only… NOT ONLY were the victims gay, but some were even Hispanic.

        1. Obligatory perennial:

          Local Muslims Fear Backlash From Tomorrow’s Train Bombing

        2. I bet the Islamic terrorist even conducted interviews before shooting, asked them their nationality, and then only shot the Mexicans. He was a Trump supporter also, and a teabagger.

  2. I’m sure this comment thread will be incredibly thoughtful, understanding and kind by all parties.

    ::dives into bunker::

  3. Wait… wait, hold on. Hold everything. Something just struck me as odd…

    There are gay clubs in Orlando?

    1. Why is that odd? Orlando is a bit of a gay Mecca in June.

      1. Well that went over like a lead balloon.

        I guess the mood’s too somber for my jokes. It could be argued the mood’s never really right for my jokes.

        1. Sorry. It is a little too close to home for me. A friend was going out that night but stayed in. Two of his friends were killed at the club.

          1. I’m truly sorry to hear that.

          2. My condolences to your friend. That’s really shitty.

            1. Thanks all. It means a lot.

          3. This is horrible to hear. I’m sorry for your friend and his friends, not to mention their families.

      2. gay Mecca

        That’s the kind of thing that could get the Muslims riled up.

    2. Every non-Disney street in Orlando basically goes sad strip club, pawn shop, pawn shop, gay club, trailer park, sketchy motel, sketchy motel, sketchy motel with hourly rates, burned out trailer park, sad strip club (hottest day shift!), gay club, liquor store covered in iron bars, pawn shop, gay club, sketchy motel, gay trailer park, gay bar with brunch.

      1. You do not have to stay on Orange Blossom Trail, you know.

      2. I’ve never been to Orlando but this is exactly how I pictured it. Which is what prompted my ill-timed joke.

      3. A redneck Detroit?

      4. So Libertarian paradise?

    3. What struck me as odd is that this implies there are straight clubs in orlando.

  4. Trump appeals to dummies. The smart way to deal with Islamist terrorists is to open the borders, and respond to any atrocities by stacking up teddy bears and flowers, lighting lots of candles, and singing “Imagine” while hugging each other and crying.

    1. You forgot to bomb the country they came from – then admit more of the people you bombed as refugees.

      1. I also forgot: abrogating the 227 year old Second Amendment rights for the law abiding citizens in hopes of limiting the harm done by the foreign crazies we let in.

        1. Hey, we have a proven formula that has been working wonders in the U.S. and Europe for the past few decades. Why change or even question it?

    2. don’t forget the powerful weapon of modifying your facebook profile pic.

  5. But if it could just save one child…

  6. Only a small percentage of salmonella-tainted food is actually salmonella! A ban on the entire piece of food is clearly unfair.

    As for the “small percentage” of Muslim terrorists….

    1. That source doesn’t count. They’re on CAIR’s “inner core” of Islamophobia list.

      1. “Linking to dozens of surveys by reputable pollsters is so unfair!”

    2. Tweak your analogy a bit and you have a point. Something like recalling all boxes of cereal because a piece of glass was found in one.

  7. So how does the percentage of Muslim immigrants tied to terrorism compare to say, Polish immigrants, Ukrainian immigrants, or Japanese immigrants?

    1. You’re not supposed to notice that, you hater.

    2. It’s different because the US foreign policy has mistreated people in the middle east, or at least meddled in their internal affairs. Or at the very least, some other country led by white people has at some point been a jerk to them.

      Unlike, uh, Europe and Japan.

    3. Or the Irish, or the Italians, or the polish of yesteryear?

  8. Yes. It is a tiny portion that are involved in terrorism. But short of repealing the constitution, there is no way to tell just who that tiny portion is. Don’t tell me about how more cops and connecting the dots can figure that out. it won’t.

    So if you want Muslim immigration, the price is going to be things like what happened Saturday happening once in a while. There is no other way around it. Reason clearly thinks that is a price worth paying. And maybe they are right. But they need to be honest and admit that is the price.

    Those people being murdered Saturday are just paying that price that must be paid for not discriminating against Muslims who wish to immigrate here. Freedom as they say is not free.

    1. The dude was born in New York.

      1. His parents were not. But in a larger sense, yes, those people were murdered for the crime of being gay so that Muslims may live in America.

        1. You’re a horrible stupid Nazi, John.

          1. If there were no Muslims in this country, would Saturday have happened? Tony, Muslims hate you. They really do. And you are so blinded by Prog ideology, I really think you let them murder you and be happy about it because you think your dying helped the cause.

            1. Christians hate me too and have been murdering and maiming my people since long before Muslim terrorism became a problem. Perhaps you should be expelled.

              If you were anyone else I’d think you were engaging in satire, but you’re really that big of an ignorant Nazi. We can’t ban people because of their religion John. That’s pretty much the most basic norm of Western civilized liberalism.

              And just what do you think contributes more to radicalization, tolerance and liberalism or Trumpian bigotry? Your dear leader is currently the world’s biggest recruiter of jihadists. Just ask them.

              1. Your people? Retards?

                1. Tony has come out of the closet here before.

                  Tony’s LGBTQI / on the rainbow somewhere.

                  He supported Obama back when Obama was campaigning on “Marriage is between a man and a woman”, too.

                  He couldn’t support the libertarian candidate instead because the libertarian candidate was libertarian.

                2. Your people? That’s racist.

              2. Christians hate me too and have been murdering and maiming my people since long before Muslim terrorism became a problem.

                and where are they doing this? The plain reality is that in the SJW pecking order, your party has chosen the religion that wants you dead over you.

                Was the emergence of ISIS Trump’s fault? Did he break Libya? Is he pushing for bringing in “refugees” by the thousands? No, all three times.

              3. “your people”?

                what are you going to do, start singing, “Lift Every Voice” and lower your eyes?

          2. That, ladies and germs, is a cogent, logical, well thought argument if I’ve seen one. /sarc

        2. Okay, so, logically we needed to ban the Muslims from immigrating long before they actually were a threat to America. Since the problems are American-born citizen children of people who immigrated back when Islamic terrorists were on America’s side in the noble fight against the USSR.

          So, logically, it’s the fault of the people in the distant past, who failed to properly scry in their crystal balls and realize that they needed to block Muslim immigration years ago to prevent their kids from becoming terrorists.

          Well, it’s much to late to fix this, John!! The damage is done, and the threats to this country are now American citizens with those annoying “rights” things that prevent us from getting rid of them. Unless you have a time machine I don’t see a ban, now, fixing the problem.

          RIGHT NOW, what we clearly NEED to do, is to use our modern, more accurate future-prediction powers to figure out which group will be anti-America some thirty years in the future, and ban THEM from entering the United States. So who do you peg as America’s enemy thirty years from now?? I’m thinking the Russians and Chinese are potential future enemies. Time we banned Russian and Chinese immigration, so that their kids don’t radicalize and turn against America in future conflicts against Russia or China.

          1. There are not that many Muslims in this country. So rationally, we should at least stop new ones from coming into the country.

            And yes, your answer to this is to tell the public “fuck you die”. And if this kind of stuff only happens once in a while, that answer may work. But if it starts happening more often, that answer isn’t going to work and the public will start to take matters into their own hands. Moreover, the more Muslims you allow into the country, the less likley the public will not accept “this is the price we pay for freedom” as an answer.

            Libertarians have no answer to this other than “this is too bad we will be sure the clean up the bodies and arrest whoever did this assuming they are still alive”. They need to be honest with themselves about that fact.

          2. So who do you peg as America’s enemy thirty years from now?? I’m thinking the Russians and Chinese are potential future enemies.

            You’re way off. It’s those damned Canadians with their beady little eyes and flopping heads so full of lies. /Kyle’s mom

    2. It’s a tiny portion that are involved in terrorism, but an incredibly large minority (possibly even a majority) that actively enables the terrorist portion to thrive.

      I’ll give a parallel. Only a small number of US citizens are libertarians. However, because most members of civil and political society are sympathetic to our views – we can discuss our ideas, live openly, and push our political agenda. In countries like Saudi Arabia, that is not possible.

      So, yes, terrorists are a small minority of Muslims just like libertarians are a small minority of Americans. However, because Muslims at large are sympathetic to terrorism, terrorism thrives in Islamic communities to a degree it does not in other communities. Similarly, Americans’ sympathy for libertarianism allows it to thrive in this country to a degree it does not in Muslim countries.

      In other words, it’s not crazy to keep the Muslims out of this country.

  9. Stopping immigrants from coming here is probably the most palatable of all the stupid responses to the attack in Miami–palatable from a constitutional perspective anyway.

    It’s certainly better than banning guns or John’s completely reprehensible desire for the FBI to arrest people for what they believe or say.

    Trump’s response is like Trump himself–absolutely awful but better than what the progressives want to do.

    Until all this blows over, minimizing immigration from places with a significant numbers of terrorists who mean us harm isn’t entirely unreasonable–even if it wouldn’t have stopped the attacks in Boston or Miami.

    1. It would have stopped the Boston and Orlando attacks if we had stopped the parents from coming here.

      1. Didn’t they all either come here or were born here before 9/11?

        Notice, I’m not condoning filtering out immigrants based on religion either. It’s just that if you’re a refugee from a country with a significant anti-American terrorist presence and we can’t tell the genuine victims from the terrorists (hell, they may be one in the same), then maybe we can find a way to help that doesn’t involve bringing you here to live among us.

        1. Why not take it all the way and have a moratorium on *all* immigration?

          War is Hell.

          1. Because that’s self-defeating. Immigration is a fantastic thing.

            We should be opening our doors to German, French, and Swedish immigrants who are fleeing . . . immigration.

            Oh, the irony!

            1. Ironic indeed.

              I was just trying to avoid, um, profiling.

      2. Yeah, as I said above. It was the stupid assholes in the 90’s and 80’s that are to blame for this!! If THOSE assholes had PROPERLY used their crystal balls to look into the future and see the current war with radical Islam and the United States, they could have banned Muslim immigration and prevented the citizen-children of those immigrants from launching their attacks against us!!

        Stupid fuckers and their flawed future-seeing powers!!

    2. t’s certainly better than banning guns or John’s completely reprehensible desire for the FBI to arrest people for what they believe or say.

      I don’t believe that at all ken. In fact, i think that is a horrible idea. That is why I think the only solution is to stop letting more Muslims into the country. It is a tough choice but the only other options are just telling the public too bad, which they won’t accept, or resorting to really extreme law enforcement measures, which is a horrible idea.

      I don’t care if you agree with me Ken. But I would appreciate it if you would at least try to understand what I am saying and refrain from slandering me by pretending I support things I don’t. I am sorry but I have to read mal intent in your saying this, because I can’t believe anyone could be so stupid that they could think I was saying that. Are you really that stupid Ken or just that big fo a dishonest prick?

      1. This morning you were bemoaning the fact that the FBI had to wait for the terrorists on their radar to do something–rather than just arrest them for what they say or believe.

        Just because you don’t like the obvious implications of what you wrote doesn’t mean I’m being dishonest about what you wrote or the context in which it was written.

        If you’ve cooled off or changed you mind since, then congratulations.

        1. This morning you were bemoaning the fact that the FBI had to wait for the terrorists on their radar to do something–rather than just arrest them for what they say or believe.

          I never said anything like that you dishonest prick. I said the FBI wasn’t going to prevent these attacks and anyone who claims they can is lying. I haven’t cooled off or changed my position.

          Go fuck yourself Ken. Like I said, I am fine with people who disagree but you just lie and there is no point in arguing with a liar.

          1. You people have a winning argument when they result to lying and ad hominem attacks.

  10. Incidentally, the progressive left is pathetic.

    When a white Christian refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple, it’s a hate crime.

    When a Muslim murders 50 gay people, the problem is guns.

    1. Amazing how you feel the need to shit on liberals no matter the context. Were there guns involved in the cake baking thing? In fact the only common thread in these incidents is the way rightwingers have an undying need to find a reason to be bigoted against people however they possibly can.


      2. Were there guns involved in the cake baking thing?

        Oh, yes. *Lots* of guns behind the scenes.

      3. Were there guns involved in the cake baking thing?

        The men the government sends, to enforce the terms of the punitive lien on the property meant to enforce slavery cakes, are typically armed.

        1. I know, I know, hypothetical, metaphorical guns are bad. Real guns equal freedom.

          1. There’s nothing metaphorical about men with guns coming to kidnap or kill you for not baking a cake against your will.

      4. “Amazing how you feel the need to shit on liberals no matter the context.”

        I shat on “the progressive left” specifically. Not liberals.

        And the progressives left desperately needs to be shit on.

        “Were there guns involved in the cake baking thing? In fact the only common thread in these incidents is the way rightwingers have an undying need to find a reason to be bigoted against people however they possibly can.”

        Only Tony can fail to grasp the difference between consensual and violent behavior–even while he points out the difference himself!

        Refusing to bake a cake and shooting 50 people.

        One of those should be perfectly legal. Can you guess which one?

  11. I think banning “Muslims” is stupid.

    I think banning immigration from named countries (Saudi, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc.) is eminently sensible.

    Sure, only a fraction of immigrants actually wind up committing terrorism, but they swim in a sea of other similar immigrants (try following the case of the Yemenis in Minnesota to see how this works), and its the least bad option that might actually make a difference.

    Of course, any immigration restriction first requires that you accept the idea that not everyone on the planet has an inalienable right to move to the US. Which is not a step that some are willing to take.

    1. Why is banning Muslims stupid? I understand your point about certain countries but a good number of radicals are born in Europe. Are you going to ban all immigration from Europe?

      The problem is Muslims. So why is concentrating on the problem stupid?

      1. Lots of white guys have committed mass shootings. Should we ban all white people from being in the country, or perhaps just white males?

        1. Islam is an ideology not a race Tony.

          1. So how come you can advocate for trashing the 1st amendment but I can’t say anything about the 2nd?

            1. Probably because nothing the attackers did couldn’t have been done with homemade explosives. Or do you think infringing on the 2nd amendment and people’s privacy just might do the trick for that too?

        2. Ban all white males and there can finally be a progressive utopia.

          1. You jest, but I’ve read something like this in sincerity lots of times.

            1. No kidding. I have actually heard white progressive males step right up to that line.

      2. Why is banning Muslims stupid?

        (1) Too hard to actually identify Muslims.

        (2) Plenty of countries don’t host appreciable numbers of radical Muslims.

        1. 1) Not really but that’s no reason not to try.

          2) Good for them. The reasons for that are varied. I wonder why Japan is in that club.

          1. “Not really but that’s no reason not to try.”

            Counterpoint: Then let’s just ban “Bad Guys” from immigrating and be done with it. NO ONE wants Bad Guys in this country, so it makes sense. And all terrorists or criminals or even non-criminal scumbags of all sorts would be out of the country leading to a utopia.

            And sure, it’s probably hard to identify “Bad Guys” but just because it is hard, that’s no reason not to try.

            1. Thanks for making the point for us. We don’t know who the bad guys are. So there is no way to vet Muslim immigrants. There is, however, one way to ensure that no Muslims terrorists get into the country. You can’t figure out the terrorist part but you can figure out the Muslim part.

              It is of course a drastic solution. But it is the only available solution. The other option is how many Americans have to die so that Muslims may be free. That is really what is going on here. You are telling Americans a decent number of them are going to have to be slaughtered so that Muslims can be free to immigrate here. Good luck with that.

              1. Couldn’t you make the same argument for banning immigration of all theists into the country?

                Sure, the number of terrorists per capita is lower than that for Muslims, but the freedom for theists to immigrate still requires acceptance that some will commit terrorism, it’s just a different number of immigrants and a different number of terrorists. Still requires the choice you laid out.

                1. Couldn’t you make the same argument for banning immigration of all theists into the country?

                  No, because only one brand of theism is disproportionately associated with terror.

            2. Identifying Muslims is eminently more feasible. It’s really not that hard, at all. And yeah some may be rather convincing about their apostasy and get through the vetting process but the vast majority of them could be identified with extreme ease.

              1. It’s really not that hard, at all.

                So, Omar not-Muhammad-nuh-uh says on his form “Nope, not a Muslim.”

                Now, how do you determine whether he actually is?

                1. Do you think the Greek or Macedonian border guards have much trouble figuring out who was a Muslim among the hundreds of thousands that were literally washing up on the shore and drifting through the country? Even if every single one of them lied on the paperwork, I think it remains pretty obvious. The only way not to see is to close your eyes.

                  I can I tell you this, walking down the street in Rotterdam I have absolutely no trouble figuring out who is a Muslim and who isn’t. And no, it’s not perfect system and I don’t have the power to peer into their minds, but I don’t need to have a magical power to apply some reasoning to my sensory data. Profiling is underrated.

        2. “Why is banning Muslims stupid?”

          1) Discriminating based on religion is probably unconstitutional.

          2) It’s unnecessary if you identify countries with significant anti-American terrorist threats.

          Anytime you do something that’s both unconstitutional and unnecessary, you’re almost certainly doing something stupid.

          1. No it is not unconstitutional Ken. The 14th Amendment applies to citizens or people already here. It doesn’t apply to people outside of the US and who are not citizens. The federal government has broad immigration powers and has banned particular religions and groups from coming here in the past.

            And if we could identify who the terrorists were, we wouldn’t have a problem. We don’t know which Muslims are going to be terrorists and have no way of figuring that out until they do something and it is too late. The more Muslims you allow into the country, the more terror attacks you will have.

            You have no solution ken other than magical thinking about “identifying the threats” and telling people they need to die so that foreign Muslims are free to move here.

            1. “The 14th Amendment applies to citizens or people already here”

              The First Amendment applies to the federal government.

              “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

              “No, you can’t come here ’cause you’re Muslim” isn’t a constitutional law.

              “Sorry, but terrorists in your country pose a security threat, and we have no way of telling whether you’re a terrorist” is probably constitutional.

              And why is it so important to exclude people–specifically because they’re Muslims–anyway? I don’t care about what people say or believe. I care about what they do. If we can exclude people because they might be terrorists, why insist it’s because of their religion?

    2. The point is, suspend immigration from those areas where there is a greater possibility for terrorists to infiltrate until we can get a handle on our home grown terrorists. Why risk adding to the problem? We have no obligation to accept anyone from another country, unless you believe we have been complicit in the destabalization of the region, which I do, but still am for a suspension of immigration from these parts. We also need to look at the visa program that lets some citizens of other countries come here without a visa.

  12. Trump Reiterates His Call for a Ban on Muslim Immigrants Because a Tiny Percentage Are ‘Implicated in Terrorism’

    Fucking Christ. Once again, the problem is not that every single Muslim is a terrorist that actually pulls the trigger. The problem is that a huge proportion of this ideological group hellbent on religiously proscribed world domination, views terrorism and Sharia law as noble and virtuous. Yes only a miniscule proportion of them are actual terrorists, but they receive tons of moral and material support, and recruits, from their community without whom the terrorists would not be nearly as able to do what they do.

    The purported benefits of having a large Muslim minority in your country are far outweighed by the negatives.

    1. The purported benefits of having a large Muslim minority in your country

      Like what? Decent falafel?

      1. Doners are good. But I’d be happy to let a gay transgendered Vietnamese food truck operator culturally appropriate that market.

        1. Man, that post has to be a hate crime.

          1. Indeed it is.

            “Food trucks” are assault vehicles in the hate-war against brick and mortar restaurants.

      2. You get too many muslims, you stop getting souvlaki. It’s all lamb and beef and chicken. Where’s the pork?

    2. The problem is the ideology. When otherwise decent people are indoctrinated to dehumanize homosexuals, and then taught that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for punishing them as Sharia requires, you shouldn’t be surprised when a number of people respond to those incentives.

      1. “punishing them as Sharia requires”

        Only because their dumbasses that believe in Hadith.

        1. Only because their dumbasses that believe in Hadith.

          It’s nice that you’re so enlightened but there are a lot of dumbasses in the population then.

          The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

          ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK

          MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims (in Canada) want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)

          World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
          76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country

          65% of Muslims in Europe say Sharia is more important than the law of the country they live in.

    3. If one is going to have a party and invite 100 guests and it is possible that one of the 100 may be wanting to kill you and some of your guests, are you going to say, “oh, it’s ok, there’s only one that may want to kill me?”

  13. Do the real libertarians avoid these threads out of sheer embarrassment or what? Most people here are calling for some equivalent of Muslim concentration camps… I’ve always said I don’t think libertarians are prepared to pay the price of the level of freedom they advocate, but this racist pants-shitting is beyond everything.

    1. “Most people here are calling for some equivalent of Muslim concentration camps.”

      You do realize that we can read what was actually written in this thread, right?

      1. It’s Tony.

        1. Someone has to build a straw man so they can tear it down.

    2. “Most people here are calling for some equivalent of Muslim concentration camps”

      Just read the whole thing and… no one did that. Unless I missed something. Plenty of people with stupid ideas but not one pitched anything like that. Ya know what?? As the Reason Comment Section’s token Mohammedan I’m gonna go ahead and ask you to stop being offended on my behalf.

      Plenty of people are saying stupid shit, but you exaggerating it isn’t going to help anything. Stop your game of being offended on my behalf and leave, please, unless you are prepared to engage the stupid ideas without lying about what’s actually being said. You’re really only hurting your own side of the debate by engaging in dishonesty.

      1. As the Reason Comment Section’s token Mohammedan

        ProLifeLibertarian has also identified herself (IIRC) as a Muslim. Although she’s not around often.

        The “mind” behind dajjal/AddictionMyth claims to be a Muslim but honestly no religion deserves the offense of being associated with that nutjob.

        1. The “mind” behind dajjal/AddictionMyth claims to be a Muslim but honestly no religion deserves the offense of being associated with that nutjob.

          That’s insulting to scientology.

  14. Trump Reiterates His Call for a Ban on Muslim Immigrants Because a Tiny Percentage Are ‘Implicated in Terrorism’

    And Obama reiterated his call for “common sense” gun control because a tiny percentage of gun owners commit mass murders (and I’m sure Her Cankleness won’t be far behind, if she hasn’t already). It’s almost as if politicians use tragic events to push their favorite hobby horses. It would be nice if they’d at least hold off until all the bodies have reached room temperature though. Apparently that’s asking too much.

    1. What about obama’s promise to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. That was only 2 years ago so I guess his degrading and ultimately destroying hasn’t had time to kick in yet.

  15. Sounds no different from the Democrats to me.

    Guy who passed a background check goes on shooting spree.


    American-born Muslim goes on killing spree.


    1. Well, if Omar’s whackjob father hadn’t been let in, Omar wouldn’t have been born here and thus wouldn’t have committed his atrocity.

      1. Okay!! When you have your time machine, me and you can go back to the 70’s or so and then I’ll gladly support you and your bans against all Muslim immigrants. Until then, your solution is like slapping a band-aid over an infected wound, assuming all worries about the children of Muslim immigrants are true. They’re already here.

        1. While it’s impossible to alter the past, it is possible to minimize problems in the future. Just sayin’

        2. Eternal Blue Sky: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    2. Yeah, we’re looking at historic, multi-generational, social change in the Muslim world. It’s really a struggle with modernity, with ISIS and other Islamists acting as a reactionary force.


      Satellite television, the internet, travel to the West for study, etc. These things only came recently to the Muslim world. The reactionary response speaks to the Muslims who are relatively well off and American citizens going bonkers, too. How do they explain why they’re unsuccessful, with a broken marriage, etc, when the Quran says they’re doing everything right? One explanation is that everything needs to back to the way it was when the Quran was first put to paper.

      I think what we’re basically seeing is the Muslim Reformation. Remember too that the Protestant reformation wasn’t people just arguing about theology and doctrine. It was decades of the bloodiest wars Europe had ever known. We’re talking upwards of 12 million people dying at a time when Europe’s population was less than 80 million.

      1. Exactly – enough of this “Islam needs a Reformation, derp derp” stuff.

        1. Their kids are lusting after Bollywood starlets and dancing to rap music. They want consumer items their parents and grandparents never dreamed of.

          Oh we got trouble! Right here in River City!

          The reformation wasn’t just a theological debate. Modern history starts around 1500 CE for a reason. That’s when the West started struggling with modernity, and until recently, we’ve still had Great Awakenings periodically in reaction to various forms of modernity.

          The reformation ended hundreds of years ago, and we were still arguing about creationism in public schools, whether gay people should get married, etc. right up until recently. During the reformation, I’m not sure people realized that’s what they were going through. That’s just something historians started calling it after the fact.

          Politicians won’t say that we’re going through multi-generation social change, however, and we’re just going to have to make our way the best we can. They gotta propose solutions to historic social change. So which one is it going to be? Gun control or ignoring the religious freedom of Muslims? One of them must be the solution–because we can’t just stand around and do nothing!!!

      2. I think what we’re basically seeing is the Muslim Reformation.

        I do, too. Unfortunately, the Wahhabis snagged the starring role as the reformers.

        1. I don’t think they’re reformers.

          They’re reactionaries. They want to take things back to the way they used to be. That’s reactionary.

          The reformers are the kids in the street listening to American rappers and lusting over Bollywood starlets. The reformers are the kids who were educated in the West and don’t think Westerners are so bad. They’re accused of having been Americanized.

          My God, they’re getting ready to let women drive in Mecca. In MECCA!

          The reformers are the people who can’t pretend the sun orbits the earth just because their Imam says so. That’s how it happened in the enlightenment/during the reformation, too.

    3. Anyway, if that’s the kind of conflict we’re talking about, then anybody thinking that we’re a policy change or a war or two away from peace and tranquility is missing the big picture. The Protestant reformation was about people struggling with modernity, too. Literacy and the printing press were to the Protestant reformation what the internet and satellite television are to the Muslim Reformation.

      The wars of religion in Europe accompanying the Reformation went from roughly 1520 to 1650. If that’s what’s going on in the Muslim world, then anybody who thinks gun control or electing Trump is going to make a difference is oblivious.

  16. Let me just run this up the flagpole:

    Reduce the number of immigrant visas given for that region, and provide that, of those visas, at least a certain fixed percentage must go to genuine bona fide refugees – that is, people with well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, or for that matter sexual orientation.

    Thus, fewer immigrants from the area, and of those we *do* admit, many of them will have incentives to *oppose* the stuff they’re fleeing, rather than replicate it in the US.

    1. With this proviso: If a person asks for a refugee visa and claims they’re persecuted for being an Islamist fanatic, then deny the visa – refugee or not, it would be too much of a risk to admit them.

      1. And since the burden is on the alleged refugee to prove his or status, make him/her prove it. There are plenty of criminal outfits too willing to help people fabricate refugee claims.

        1. Not a panacaea – but of course nothing human is.

        2. make him/her prove it

          How? We’re already doing that and it’s not working.

          1. Because we’re accepting dubious “proof” – like the person saying they were persecuted.

            Not to mention forged documents.

            No panacea, but if someone’s in a foreign refugee camp, our immigration officers have two decisions: (a) is the person an actual refugee, and (b) if he is, should we use our discretionary power to award him one of a limited number of refugee visas, or should we prefer the other guy with better evidence?

          2. Immigration Officer: “So you say you’re fleeing oppression and you’re not a muslim extremist?”

            Refugee: “Yes, that’s correct.”

            IO: “Here, eat this ham sandwich.”

            1. I’ve seen reports of jihadi training which specifically incorporates sodomy into the training sequence, so I would imagine that if they can rationalize sodomy in the name of jihad, they can rationalize a ham sandwich.

        3. You’d probably get better results by demanding they don’t procreate after they get here.

    2. I believe that’s essentially what’s going on now.

      The Obama administration (and other western countries) have limited immigration from these regions to refugees and further limited that to families. In fact, I recall a report that essentially use a whole fuck-ton of words to say that (especially Western Europe) weren’t admitting any single, fighting aged males.

      1. Yet they admitted millions of them.

    3. Imagine someone’s called 911 because their child has stopped breathing.

      Do you check to see which country the child is from, or do you just go ahead and send an ambulance?

      I have no qualms about the desperate state of refugees. The real question for me is whether it’s necessary to bring them to the United States in order to help them.

      Surely, there must be some way to help these people that doesn’t involve bringing them to live among us.

      1. I was talking specifically about admitting refugees to the U.S.

        I think America should do her part toward relieving the suffering of displaced peoples – first by short-term aid to the people in the camps, and for some lucky ones, letting them into the country.

        But here we need to show some compassion for the people already in the US, and try what’s humanly possible not to *create* new humanitarian disasters in the name of addressing others.

  17. maybe Sullum can donate his super duper Spidey-sense to the government so they can automatically tell which Muslim immigrants mean us no harm and which are gonna shoot or blow up the place.

    1. Comparable to your super duper Spidey-since that can automatically tell which immigrants are Muslims and which are not?? Or would your immigration block be based on the honor system??

      1. To be fair, Slappy doesn’t really care that much about religion. They are coming in to weaken and dilute the Proud White Race with their browness and that’s enough to keep them out.

    2. The FBI doesn’t have a super Spidey-sense.

      To tell who is and who isn’t going to use a gun in a crime, they use computers!

      It doesn’t work so well, but at least they’re doing something. And isn’t that what’s really important?

  18. Shorter Sullum: “Don’t worry, only a tiny percentage of Muslims follow their religion closely!” Somehow, I don’t find that comforting.

    1. “follow their religion closely”


      1. Killing gays is in the Koran.

  19. That means no more than 0.07 percent of immigrants from the Middle East either are accused of involvement in terrorism or have children who are.

    Has anyone run the numbers here – are we getting our money’s worth?

    1. How many Southerners were directly involved with lynchings? I guess lynchings were no big deal either.

  20. I can no longer keep up with all the Trump articles. They’re all pretty much the same.

    1. Trump bad, johnson good, omgawa. Tarzan know where tarzan go.

  21. It is effectively impossible to publicly draw Muhammad in this country or make a movie critical is Islam. The FBI will tell you they can’t protect you. If 20 years ago, I had told you people that in 2016 that would be the case, none of you would have believed me and all no doubt said i was a paranoid bigot.

    IT shows how disgraceful reason is on this subject that even though they have dedicated enormous amounts of effort towards the cause of gay rights, reason has barely mentioned the fact that this was a gay bar or understood the significance of that. If Muslims can terrorize people into not drawing Muhammad, why can’t also terrorize gays into no longer going out in public to clubs? Shoot a few more gay bars and most gays will rationally decide that going out to a gay club isn’t worth risking their life. And like drawing Muhammad, we will no longer be free to do that.

    And when Muslims are done with terrorizing the gay bars, where next? Regular bars? Strip clubs? Churches?

    Saturday was a direct assault on our freedom. And reason and libertarians have no answer to that assault other than “carry a gun next time and you better not think this had anything to do with Islam because that would make you a collectivist and a bigot”.

  22. Also hilarious:

    only one-third of whom were accused of planning or carrying out attacks against targets in the United States

    Oh, all right then! Why worry?

    1. Only .07 percent support terrorism. So, lets let 10 million Muslims immigrate into the country in the next five years. That means only 70,000 people in the country will either are accused of involvement in terrorism or have children who are. What could possibly go wrong?

      Lets say only .07 of that seventy thousand ever pull off a terrorist attack. That is only 490 terrorist attacks. Just 490 San Bernidinos or Orlando or Fort Hood shootings.

      How could anyone but an irrational bigot think this is some kind of a big deal or worth worrying about.

      1. .07 terrorism support terrorism? That’s total bullshit. The number who support terrorism in Islamic communities is drastically higher.

        1. I think you are right about that. The bigger issue is that the consequences of these attacks are so high, it doesn’t matter if only one in five hundred thousand Muslims ever becomes a terrorist. Sure, out of ten million new Muslim immigrants only 20 will ever become terrorists. It sounds do reasonable until you realize that means 20 attacks like this one or worse. When you realize that, you understand how insane their reasoning is.

          1. Well there are a third of that number here now and your math isn’t working for them.

            1. The problem with Islamic terrorism isn’t the occasional nutjob doing bad things in Islam’s name, the problem is Islam itself, whose practitioners overwhelmingly correlate with violence, conquest and support for terrorism.

              Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified

              Majorities in Egypt (63%) and Libya (61%) supported the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi.

              The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States (66% disagree).

  23. Why shouldn’t we libertarians oppose immigration by members of a group that actively espouses establishing a totalitarian political regime in this country (and, indeed, in every country)?

    1. Because Libertarians operate under the assumption that if we just leave such people alone they will stop being that way and leave others alone. Libertarian ideology cannot account for a group that is both aggressive and cannot be deterred into following the NAP by the threat of self defense.

      1. Also, the whole “freedom of religion” thing is premised on the idea that religions aren’t trying to rule the world. Well, one of them is. Let’s declare Islam a political movement, then we can ban immigration by Muslims the same way we do (or did) by communists and Nazis.

        1. “Also, the whole “freedom of religion” thing is premised on the idea that religions aren’t trying to rule the world. “

          Does the term VICARIVS FILLII DEI mean anything to you?

          How ’bout the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the New World?

          The framers were very aware of religions trying to take over the world–and they decided not to give a shit.

          Franklin wrote that if the Imams wanted to preach on every street corner, we should let them.

          The First Amendment is a direct descendant of Peace of Westphalia and its compromise that Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists should be free to practice their religion regardless of the religion of their Baron or Lord–and that the Baron or Lord should be free to to practice their religion regardless of the religion of the Emperor or King.

          And if you think modern Wahhabi is bad, life under the Calvinists in Geneva would make the Wahhabi look like boys scouts.

          They had Elders who would go from house to house inspecting people and their homes looking for sins and bringing them before the ecclesiastical court. Musical instruments were outlawed for 200 years. Entertainments forbidden. And they were damn evangelical about it all!

          The Framers know about all that stuff–and they sanctioned both free exercise and freedom from establishment anyway. I don’t care what you do–so long as you don’t force anyone else to do it against their will. If you think that logic somehow breaks down with Islam, then you’re wrong.

          1. It does break down with Islam, because Islam recognizes no separation of church and state. Islam is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Enlightenment values of the Founders, whether they realized it or not.

            1. “It does break down with Islam, because Islam recognizes no separation of church and state.”

              Catholics traditionally haven’t recognized the separation of church and state either. Do you imagine the framers thought Catholics shouldn’t be free to believe what they want anyway? Separation of church and state is a Protestant thing.

              Who cares if Muslims don’t believe in the separation of church and state–as long as long as church and state remain separated?

              This a very progressive mindset, where people can no longer recognize any meaningful difference between what people say and believe, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what people do. Please tell me you can see the difference between people believing we should all bow towards Mecca and pray five times a day–and people being forced to bow towards Mecca and pray.

              Because there is a big difference.

              Meanwhile, if you want the government to treat some people differently based on their religious beliefs, then you’re the one that’s against the separation of church and state.

          2. “Franklin wrote that if the Imams wanted to preach on every street corner, we should let them.”
            Preach – not bomb. We’re not talking about banning Islam any more than we’re talking about banning communism. However, there’s only room for a limited number of people to emigrate to America. I see know reason why communists and Muslims shouldn’t generally be at the bottom of that list.

            “I don’t care what you do–so long as you don’t force anyone else to do it against their will. ”
            Yeah, but Muslims are trying to do the latter. We’re not having this debate because a Muslim guy decided he wouldn’t act on his homosexual tendencies; we’re having this debate because a Muslim guy decided to kill a bunch of people for being gay.

            1. F*ck. I wrote “know reason”.

            2. The whole thing about Imam’s preaching on street corners is kind of a misconception about how Islam has historically proselytized. Yeah they take converts here and there, but the purpose of that has been mostly for the purpose of building up their numbers and support networks prior to conquest.

            3. “Preach – not bomb. We’re not talking about banning Islam any more than we’re talking about banning communism.”

              I think some of us are talking about encroaching on the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

              I think they’re falling all over themselves trying to justify it somehow.

          3. It does break down with Islam because Islam does not recognize secular government nor permit the notion of “I don’t care what you do–so long as you don’t force anyone else to do it against their will.”

            The notion of al-Islam din wa-dawla (Islam is religion and state) is pervasive. Kafirs (non-believers) are to be converted, subjugated or killed. There is no call for secular tolerance.

            Actually saw this on a Muslim website:

            In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

            The call for secularism in the Muslim world is rooted in the misunderstanding of Islam’s traditional relationship to government and the assumption that Western secular models are appropriate for Muslim countries. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have trouble understanding this issue in context due to the lack of scholarly analysis available in the media.

            The Western experience does not entirely apply to Islam because normative Islamic tradition has within it the mechanisms necessary to prevent theocracy, politicization of religion, intolerance, and human rights abuses. A Western solution to a Western problem does not mean the same solution can apply to a Muslim problem. Rather, Muslims can overcome the problem of fanaticism and intolerance from within Islam itself.


            That doesn’t seem to be working out too well…

            1. Same website…

              Therefore, tolerance is an essential teaching in Islam so there is no need to adopt a Western secular model to safeguard human rights in Muslim societies.

              At this point, some commentators will argue that most Muslims desire to be governed by Sharia law, which they mistakenly equate with medieval jurisprudence, and warn that Sharia contradicts basic human rights. However, they have not understood the important distinction between the Sharia, the way of Allah, and Fiqh, practical jurisprudence. Sharia serves as the legal and ethical philosophy of Islam which encompasses all human activities, whereas Fiqh is its practical application restricted to legal matters. Sharia is divine and immutable and comprehensive in scope, whereas Fiqh is human and more narrow and subject to change under different conditions.

              Ibn Al-Qayyim, one of the great jurists of Islamic tradition, defined the values of the Sharia to be justice, mercy, welfare, and wisdom. Any law that contradicts these values is not the Sharia, even if it is based upon an interpretation of Islamic scripture.

          4. Actually BF said, “Both house and ground were vested in trustees, expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something to the people at Philadelphia; the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

  24. And he’s being as stupid as the people who want to ban all firearms because a few madmen kill people. OTOH, we have a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms, while there is no such right for anyone to emigrate to the US (that is, Constitutionally, Congress has the right to impose limits on immigration and naturalization).

  25. Fighting fire with fire…..
    The Left calls for the disenfranchisement of all gun owners for the actions of a few,
    The Donald calls for the banning of all (or most) Muslims due to the actions of that “miniscule” sector involved in “extremist” actions.

  26. The Qur’an Proves There Is No Such Thing As Moderate Islam Or Moderate Muslims | Now The End Begins

    Why do the ‘moderate Muslims’ never speak out against radical Islam?
    For many, this article will be eye-opening to say the least. We have all heard of Christians in name only. Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, and they are hated by those who are true to the Qur’an and to their prophet, Muhammad.

    Islam is a totalitarian ideology, cloaked in robes of religion to present itself as honorable to an unsuspecting world. We have heard imams (Muslim clerics) who describe Islam as: “The Religion of Peace.” Islam is in truth a demonically influenced regime of warlords, whose goal is world dominance.

    The word Islam means submission. In this article I will take passages straight from the Qur’an which clearly show that Islam has nothing to do with peace. It has everything to do with beheading, raping, pillaging, and dominating the entire world. To those who practice Islam and are jihadists (the Qur’an commands this) their god Allah promises great rewards awaiting those who give their lives while fighting infidels.

    Who are the infidels? This term means anyone who does not believe the words of their prophet, Muhammad. In fact, the Muslims in name only are hated by the Muslims who are obedient to the words in the Qur’an. Are you beginning to understand why the so-called moderate Muslims do not speak out against the terror? They are fearful for their own lives!

    1. Here is an example of a command from their false god:

      Quran (2:191-193) ? “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing?but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun [the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.].”

      Muslim jihadists must obey the words of their book. They fear for their own lives if they do not live as terrorists, because Allah has told them in their book that they should be killed for not obeying. In fact, doubting Allah in the mind of a Muslim is terrible thing. We wonder how they can be so brutal and merciless. It’s because they must show their god that they believe him, and that they will bring terror against all infidels and slay them if they do not convert to Islam.

      Quran (2:216) ? “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Here we see Allah proclaiming to his subjects that violence is virtuous. It even states that some may find it repulsive, but they must know that their god knows what is good for them.)

      1. As a christian, calvinist in my theology, I have no respect for the quran and believe mohammed to be a false prophet. With that said, we need to be careful picking an choosing verses to make a point. So many in christendom do, as well as non believers, to make a point.

        You forgot verse 190: 190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

        Fight those who fight you….

        Ten you have vs 2:217: 217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

        Fighting in the prohibited month is a grave offense but the fight to be carried out is against those who prevent access….even if it is in the prohibited month it is a good thing not to be avoided.

        1. There’s a lot in the quran that seems to have been taken from both christian and jewish writings, not saying they are good, just making an observation. There is a huge difference between what the followers of the false prophet says, or commands and what Jesus said on the sermon on the mount. Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, be kind to those who spitefully used you….

  27. I believe that Allah is actually Satan. He fights primarily against Jews and Christians. He commands submission from his followers. Jesus is spoken of in the Qur’an, but it’s not the Jesus we know from the Word of God. Jesus ? called Isa, is merely a prophet. It is emphasized that He is not the Son of God. On the roof of the mosque on the Temple Mount are inscribed these Arabic words: “God has no son.” That sounds demonic to me.

    Quran (3:56) ? “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

    Quran (3:151) ? “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. (This speaks of Christians, who say that “God has a Son” is joining companions with Allah).

    Quran (4:74) ? “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” (Unlike early Christian who were led meekly to their slaughter, Muslims are killed in battle for the cause of Allah. This is the basis for today’s suicide bombers.)

    1. Now you have seen a sampling from the Qur’an of the terror that is commanded by its words. Religion of Peace? Hardly ? more like the Third Reich, meeting in mosques worldwide, and planning the demise of all who will not convert.

      So why do we not hear what the Qur’an really says on the news? Why do politicians avoid what is stated in black and white on the pages of this terrifying book? I can only guess that some refuse to believe that a religion could actually be so violent as the jihadists are. They have their heads in the sand, believing that the ones beheading and raping must be a radical faction of the religion of peace. Perhaps others are just plain scared.

      Here is a paragraph from President George W. Bush’s commencement address to the Air Force Academy, on 3 June 2004, illustrating the New World Order’s plan to disguise the real nature of Islam:

      “History is once again witnessing a great clash. This is not a clash of civilizations. The civilization of Islam, with its humane traditions of learning and tolerance, has no place for this violent sect of killers and aspiring tyrants. This is not a clash of religions. The faith of Islam teaches moral responsibility that ennobles men and women, and forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Instead, this is a clash of political visions.” read source

      1. This is another reason that I believe that Allah and Satan are one and the same. The deception is so blatant and so complete?only the enemy of God could pull this off. Some believe that Islam is in fact demonically influenced, but that Allah is not Satan. Be assured, that I am not saying that the Antichrist will be Islam. I believe that Satan manifests himself in many ways.

        Now when you are watching the news and you hear someone speaking about the “radical jihadist” faction of Islam, you will know the truth.

        I doubt that you will ever hear the phrase “Religion of Peace” ascribed to Islam, and not think back on the passages you’ve read here from the Qur’an.

        now theendbegins

    2. All five of the major schools of Sunni jurisprudence have issued fatwas against both Al Qaeda and ISIS. Your characterization of the beliefs of 1.2 billion people by citing these verses is ridiculous. It’s like saying Jews are a menace to society by citing rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy stating that adulterers should be stoned to death. It’s simply far more complicated than that–especially when you’re talking about 1.2 billion people spread out over dozens of countries from Morocco to Indonesia and from Kazakhstan to South Africa.

      This is like saying that Americans are a brutal people today because our ancestors once tolerated slavery.

      Here’s your word of the day: “abrogation”.

      “Seventy-one of the Quran’s one hundred fourteen surah contain abrogated verses according to one estimate.[9]”


      And what is the point of trying to convince Muslims that true Islam is about violence and persecution anyway? Why would you want young Muslims to think that? Are you trolling for Al Qaeda and ISIS, or are you just carrying their water for free?

  28. Bull shit! WE HAVE IMMIGRATION LAWS (screening) FOR EVERYONE – As we should. If we believe in “equality” there should be no amnesty (special dispensation). If the “referees” can’t follow the “play book” – get new “referees.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.