I propose that states differentiate between Mohammed and the Koran, stating, for the record, that there is no reason to believe that Mohammed wrote the Koran. There is plenty of evidence to suggest he did not. States could then suggest Mohammed was as benevolent as anyone wishes/believes him to be, as it pertains to immigration admission. However, Congress could then condemn the Koran as it represents a foreign constitution explicitly advocating sedition by all means, including violence. This is not a knock on Mohammed at all, you see, because Mohammed did not write the Koran. This way, Muslims can have their cake. No one is insulting their prophet. Now, the Koran can be used as part of the extreme vetting to keep the extremists out. An extremist would be anyone who insists Mohammed wrote the Koran. Also, an extremist could be someone who will not, on camera, rip out those passages of the Koran that represent sedition, spit on the ripped out passages, and throw them into a symbolic fire. The applicant will have to find all the relevant passages themselves, ripping them all out, or else no admission into the United States. I would include all those passages that make threats to any other people(s), or hold out Muslims as a supremacist group.
My Solution To Muslim Problem
- Thread starter Good1
- Start date
Then they should also set straight the delusional members of the Jesus cult.
You'd pretty much be creating another terrorist group among muslims for them to fight and kill each other with.
In other words, I fully support this plan.
In other words, I fully support this plan.
Do you consider yourself a constitutionalist?
I'm not against dealing with them and their book if there needs to be some sort of equality when adopting this measure.
They, as well as the Jews, cling to the "old testament" which is problematic, as it is the book that the scribe(s) of the Koran plagiarized to come up with their own justifications for tribal supremacy.
It could be argued that the existence of Koranic warfare is a response to Christian/Jewish psychological warfare.
However, the main difference, as i see it, is the old testament supremacist calls to action were theoretically confined to a relatively defined region which reached it's high water mark under Solomon. The tribal desire for global dominance must be satiated by a "messiah", by the sword of the messiah. Meanwhile, the Jews are not commanded to take up swords beyond their borders, but rather, wait for the messiah to rule the world from Jerusalem.
Christians too, wish to rule the world from Jerusalem, and likewise, wait on the second coming of the messiah. Meanwhile, they seek psychological dominance over the whole world, waging psychological warfare.
Muslims also wait on a messiah (mahdi) to rule the world, but the problem is, they have active instructions to continue making war, by all means, not just psychological. Technically, they are not really waiting for the sword of a messiah/mahdi. They are waging world war by all means, and without any limits (borders).
You'd pretty much be creating another terrorist group among muslims for them to fight and kill each other with.
In other words, I fully support this plan.
I would like to think that America was a place of refuge from such extremists, where "Muslims", who believe Mohammed was a good guy, can live without fear of being targeted by extremists who think Mohammed wrote the Koran.
The reason for having them tear out passages of the Koran on camera, is to insure they are doing something that 99% of extremists would never do. After doing this on camera, they will be motivated to keep their word, to live in peace, believing Mohammed was a peaceful man, or whatever. If they break their word, the footage can be shown to the world, they can be kicked out, and they will become a target of the extremists who saw them tear up the Koran (or at least the war-mongering supremacist parts of it).
Well after reading Lysander Spooner a little bit, it's hard to call me a constitutionalist. But what is certain, is the Koran functions as a constitution.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." ~ Lysander Spooner
For example, i would not be against having "Christians", who are applying for immigration admission, tear out the story of Sampson, spit on it, and toss it into a symbolic fire. Likewise "Jews". There are several more passages that don't belong in an America in which diverse cultures come to live in peace.
Thomas Jefferson had his own bible, for example, out of which he cut all kinds of passages.
I consider nations to be akin to pirate ships. Because of circumstances, pirates ships had a form of governance similar to a constitution. There was a list of rules, and each pirate signed his 'x' to it (if he couldn't write his name). That's what everyone, theoretically, agreed to, if they wanted to live on that ship. Some people might argue a few of those constitutions were better than the U.S., but that's beside the point. Many pirates saw pirate life as more free and fair.
Problem with the U.S. constitution is no one, except the originators, have signed it. Lysander Spooner points this out.
And i do believe that 'rights' are a myth...that man has no god given rights. Still, its ok for men to come up with agreements.
Last edited:
Likewise, it could be stated, and made law, that Jesus did not write the bible, not even the 'new testament'...and that no phrase in the new testament is guaranteed to have been said by him.
This puts the state in the role of governer, equalizing the threats against the state, equalizing the parties that must live together in peace, and excising them (the threats) in the interest of national security and domestic harmony.