• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Islam protected by the Constitution?

Re: Here are the nuts & bolts of it

Well, if you're trying to convince anyone here, I believe that entries like the above will also disqualify you for Ms. Congeniality.

You can argue the case or you can simply name call - but name calling won't convince anyone.

I am not sure that Muslims should be a protected class... their "religion" is really a military and law cover for societal take-over.
 
If they commit a crime, then you investigate & prosecute, if it's warranted.

I am not sure that Muslims should be a protected class... their "religion" is really a military and law cover for societal take-over.

I'm not sure that Islamics form a protected class in the US. But as members of a religion, certainly they're protected in their observance of conscience & worship. Now clearly, if they incite to riot or overthrow the duly constituted government - then there are laws to deal with that. But as long as they worship inoffensively, & within the bounds of their own religion, they enjoy the same protections to worship freely that members of any other religion do in the US.

The Constitutional protection of their right to worship isn't conditional - but they can't be prosecuted for mere worship. It's if & when they cross the line into committing a crime, that they can be arrested & prosecuted & held for trial.
 
Re: Here are the nuts & bolts of it

I am not sure that Muslims should be a protected class... their "religion" is really a military and law cover for societal take-over.

It sounds like you are confusing them with Onward Christian Soldiers....

Or perhaps the Knights of Columbus with their swords and military regalia.
 
Yes ****ing yes

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
 
So could you please show me in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where a worldview that demands the deaths of all disbelievers is legal and authorized by the Constitution?

The funny thing about that question is, American Christians already believe they have the right to believe hateful, ignorant BS, with no intellectual or moral standard being expected. Christians ALSO believe in Christian totalitarianism with the word "dominion" being a ubiquitous idea in their faith.

I would love for the religious, of all types, to take some responsibility for the things they say and claim to believe but they never will. When a deity excuses your stupidity, other men are powerless to convince you it's wrong.
 
The topic of this discussion is whether or not Islam is protected by the Constitution...

It is


...Muslims do not like our way of life...


Says who?
I could just as easily say Christians do not like the US "way of life"

...and come here to change our way of life into their way of life....

No they don't, they come to the USA to change (better) THEIR lives


...they do not respect our laws...


Go look at prison statistics and then tell me what the predominant religion of inmates is.


...and the Qur'an and Sunnah does not teach muslims to respect the laws of the kafir....


Weird.

Does the Bible teach Christians to obey the laws of Muslims or Muslim countries ?


...they come here to murder us...

OK, I can see you're not a serious poster.

Did Italians come to the USA to commit murder ? I mean there were a lot of Italians in the Mafia and the Mafia committed a lot of murders.

Did Europeans come to the Americas to murder Native Americans ?
 
Why wouldn't Islam be protected? It's a religion. Right?
 
Noble Qur'an 2:193, Madinah Period

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).* But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

*footnote: "(V.2:193)
(A) Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people till they testify that La illallah wa Anna Muhammmad-ur-Rasul Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah), and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives, and properties from me except for Islamic laws, and their reckoning (accounts) will be with (done by) Allah." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 1, Hadith No.24).
=====================================================================
Tafsir Al-Qurtubi,

"Fight them until there is no more fitna and the deen belongs to Allah alone.
This is a command to fight every idolater in every place according to those who say that it abrogates the previous ayats. According to those who say that it does not abrogate other ayats, it means: fight those about whom Allah says, "if they fight you". The former is the more likely meaning. It is an unqualified command to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah, "and the din belongs to Allah alone." The Prophet said, " I was commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' The ayat and hadith both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says, "until there is no more fitna," meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.
Ibn 'Abbas, Qatada, ar-Rabi', as-Suddi and others said that fitna here means shirk and the subsequent injury to the believers caused by it. The root of fitna is testing and trial, derived from the term for testing silver when it is put in the fire to separate the impurities from the pure metal.

If they cease, there should be no enmity towards any but wrongdoers.
If they stop and become Muslim or submit by paying jizya in the case of the people of the Book. Otherwise they should be fought and they are wrongdoers and only transgress against themselves. What is done to the wrongdoers is called enmity since it is the repayment of enmity. Wrongdoing and injustice involve enmity and repayment of enmity is also called enmity. The wrongdoers are either those who initiate fighting or those who remain entrenched in disbelief and fitna."

Tafsir Ibn Kathir,

"{Fitnah} meaning, disbelief and worshipping of others with Allah. {and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).} It refers to the fact that the Religion of Allah (Islam) must be prevalent over other religions. {But if they cease,} meaning, you are stop fighting them the moment they stop fighting the believers, and thereto Islam they turned; for whoever fights them after that, he is then a transgressor; and that there should be no transgression except against the polytheists and wrongdoers. Narrated Nafi' that Ibn 'Umar said that two men there came to him during the dispute of Ibn Az-Zubayr and said: "People are fighting each others. What keeps you from taking part in the fighting despite your being Ibn 'Umar and the Companion of the Prophet (PBUH)?" He said: "What keeps me as such is that Allah prohibited the killing of a Muslim." They said: "Has not Allah said: {And fight them until there is no more Fitnah}?" Ibn 'Umar said: "We fought until there were no more Fitnah and all the religion (worship) was for Allah and you want to fight till the Fitnah befalls and not to let the religion be for Allah."

How blessed and fortunate they were if there were no disbelievers or polytheists in their land(s). So if they were so blessed by it, why did they leave their land of the blessed to seek trouble with non believers?
 
Why, why do persons traverse land and sea to enter into 'pagan territories if they are going there to cause war and NOT, with diplomacy, spread The Good Word of God?
 
And when they do they are either more violent than the citizens or they are more troublesome than the citizens?
 
The topic of this discussion is whether or not Islam is protected by the Constitution.

Muslims do not like our way of life and come here to change our way of life into their way of life. They do not respect our laws and the Qur'an and Sunnah does not teach muslims to respect the laws of the kafir. They come here to murder us which is why this topic should lead to some very interesting discussion.

I will quote from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Tafsir (the interpretation of the Qur'an) to make my case that Islam is sedition to the Constitution.

Is Christianity protected by the first amendment? If so, where does it say so?
 
Mohamed, pretending to be God, said to spread Islam by violence if necessary. It was necessary. Jesus said love thy neighbor. See the difference?



Yes, it's protected. The question is whether or not it is unique among religions in that it explicitly teaches to fight infidels, and therefore shouldn't be protected.



Really?



I have a question. This is NOT rhetorical, but I would like to know of countries that have a Muslim majority that have purely secular laws. Some Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, have the death penalty for 'crimes' such as disrespecting Islam. How is that not indicative of the the OP's concerns?

The only reason why some claim that religion, any religion, seeks World - isation is because we live in the year 2018. Never before in Earth's history was religion accused of such. The only persons who accused religion of such a thing were independent philosophers in certain Countries they themselves were unhappy being in.
 
Yes, it is. /End Thread

"Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press" - First Amendment

Freedom of religion goes for Muslims just as much as they go for anyone else.

The only way Islam isn't protected under the the 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution, is if it were deemed as a cult. Since it is not and will never be viewed as such considering that nearly 2/3 of the world's population practices this religion in one form or another (Suni, Shia or any more moderate form of Islam), I don't think the right of individuals to worship ("their") God as they see fit in this country will ever change.
 
Freedom of religion is an inalienable right.
 
This is very easy. According to the US Constitution, Islam is totally within the whole religion category. As untrue as Islam is, people have a right to believe in it. It's just a belief system anyway. Who should care about that?
 
This is very easy. According to the US Constitution, Islam is totally within the whole religion category. As untrue as Islam is, people have a right to believe in it. It's just a belief system anyway. Who should care about that?

As untrue...
Strange assertion without any possible evidence.

If you had stopped after your second sentence...:ind:
 
Strange assertion without any possible evidence.

If you had stopped after your second sentence...:ind:

Thomas Jefferson's own words are very clear.
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo [Hindu], and Infidel of every denomination.”
 
Muslims are permitted to lie to disbelievers if it advances Sharia law. This means they can lie under oath.

Sahih Muslim, Vol.6, Hadith [6633] 101 - (2605),

"Chapter 27. Prohibition Of Lying, And What Is Permitted Thereof
[6633] 101 - (2605) Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Awf narrated that his mother, Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ait -- who was one of the first Muhajir women who swore alligiance to the Prophet--told him that she heard the Messenger of Allah say: "He is not a liar who reconciles between people, saying good things and conveying good things."
Ibn Shihab said (in his Hadith that she said): "I did not hear of any concession being granted concerning anything that people call lies except in three cases: War, reconciling among people, and what a man says to his wife or a woman says to her husband."

Sahih Muslim, Vol.2 (Summarized edition), Book 55, Chapter 49, hadith 1810,

"(49) CHAPTER. Permissible lies
1810. Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqbah bin Abu Mu'ait (who was from the first emigrants) narrated that she heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "He who makes peace between people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."
Ibn Shihab said: "I heard nothing where what people say can be permissible as lies except in three: war, to make people reconcile and a man's talk to make his wife happy."
In another narration: Umm Kulthum said: "I heard nothing permissible as a lie except these three."

So pleese tell us, what would you like to see happen to Anerican Muslim citizens ?
 
The topic of this discussion is whether or not Islam is protected by the Constitution.

Muslims do not like our way of life and come here to change our way of life into their way of life. They do not respect our laws and the Qur'an and Sunnah does not teach muslims to respect the laws of the kafir. They come here to murder us which is why this topic should lead to some very interesting discussion.

I will quote from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Tafsir (the interpretation of the Qur'an) to make my case that Islam is sedition to the Constitution.

The answer is yes.

First, when the Constitution was written, the was no mention of what religion, just religion. At the time it was written, the majority of Americans were Christian...yet, they were of all different denomination or were Catholic. The Constitution made no mention of which version of Christianity...and would be the subject of the Danbury letters to Jefferson and the discrimination against Catholics as a result. My point is that Christianity was not protected as whole, but only in the places where one form held sway over others.

Second, there were also a handful of Jews and a tiny amount of freedmen were Muslims with about 10% or so of the slaves also being Muslim (who had no rights as slaves anyway). The reason why I point that out is because it begs a question. The Constitution states that no religious legal test can be applied to anyone who is seeking or holding office. In the Constitution's Bill of Rights, it says religion is protected but one cannot be favored over another, or made into a state religion. So why include those two things, what were the framers trying to protect the people from?

Answer: Christianity.

So, yes, Islam and other faiths are protected, but also prohibited from influencing government. Just like Christianity. Which, by the way, also makes demands that are compatible with the Constitution as well....
 
The answer is yes.

First, when the Constitution was written, the was no mention of what religion, just religion. At the time it was written, the majority of Americans were Christian...yet, they were of all different denomination or were Catholic. The Constitution made no mention of which version of Christianity...and would be the subject of the Danbury letters to Jefferson and the discrimination against Catholics as a result. My point is that Christianity was not protected as whole, but only in the places where one form held sway over others.

Second, there were also a handful of Jews and a tiny amount of freedmen were Muslims with about 10% or so of the slaves also being Muslim (who had no rights as slaves anyway). The reason why I point that out is because it begs a question. The Constitution states that no religious legal test can be applied to anyone who is seeking or holding office. In the Constitution's Bill of Rights, it says religion is protected but one cannot be favored over another, or made into a state religion. So why include those two things, what were the framers trying to protect the people from?

Answer: Christianity.

So, yes, Islam and other faiths are protected, but also prohibited from influencing government. Just like Christianity. Which, by the way, also makes demands that are compatible with the Constitution as well....

Our Constitutional religious rights are only that of the right to believe or to not believe as we wish, and the right to worship. We do not have the right to coerce others to take part or to legislate our religious beliefs as secular law. All beliefs are to be separate from the state because of the Establishment Clause.
 
So pleese tell us, what would you like to see happen to Anerican Muslim citizens ?

I'd like to see Sharia Law for Muslims only. They can live and die by their own hand. The state would provide plenty of guillotines and stoning pits, so they can easily carry on.
 
The answer is yes.

First, when the Constitution was written, the was no mention of what religion, just religion. At the time it was written, the majority of Americans were Christian...yet, they were of all different denomination or were Catholic. The Constitution made no mention of which version of Christianity...and would be the subject of the Danbury letters to Jefferson and the discrimination against Catholics as a result. My point is that Christianity was not protected as whole, but only in the places where one form held sway over others.

Second, there were also a handful of Jews and a tiny amount of freedmen were Muslims with about 10% or so of the slaves also being Muslim (who had no rights as slaves anyway). The reason why I point that out is because it begs a question. The Constitution states that no religious legal test can be applied to anyone who is seeking or holding office. In the Constitution's Bill of Rights, it says religion is protected but one cannot be favored over another, or made into a state religion. So why include those two things, what were the framers trying to protect the people from?

Answer: Christianity.

So, yes, Islam and other faiths are protected, but also prohibited from influencing government. Just like Christianity. Which, by the way, also makes demands that are compatible with the Constitution as well....

Your "answer" is not really true.
 
I'd like to see Sharia Law for Muslims only. They can live and die by their own hand. The state would provide plenty of guillotines and stoning pits, so they can easily carry on.

So ignorant and hateful.

In the Western world, and Westernized developing nations, Sharia Law is limited civil jurisdiction voluntary arbitration that can be appealed to the courts. It's no different than any other arbitration that takes place thousands of times across America everyday.

It's Islamophobic to push abject ignorance in the name of hate.

Further, it's flat out hateful to want a group of people subject to what you believe is injustice. And it's immoral. Truly base and ethically void hate. Despicable.
 
Last edited:
So ignorant and hateful.

In the Western world, and Westernized developing nations, Sharia Law is limited civil jurisdiction voluntary arbitration that can be appealed to the courts. It's no different than any other arbitration that takes place thousands of times across America everyday.

It's Islamophobic to push abject ignorance in the name of hate.

Further, it's flat out hateful to want a group of people subject to what you believe is injustice. And it's immoral. Truly base and ethically void hate. Despicable.

I'm not hateful, just giving them what they want.
 
Back
Top Bottom