Horror in Moscow as burka-clad babysitter carrying severed child's head and shouting 'Allahu Akbar'

"Your assertion that my characterization of Muslims would apply to “Anyone!” is ridiculous. I do not know of any other religion or ideology that professes lying and killing as virtuous."

I've always said that a uniquely evil thing about Islam is that it reflects its founder, who was evil. It is not Islam;'s critics, skeptics, or even victims who have given us the information that Muhammad was a lust-driven and murderous man: it is in their very own Koran and Hadith, they celebrate it! And consider him the ideal man, worthy of emulation. This makes Islam very deeply pervaded by evil.

However I must emphasize how pervasive evil is. Cain was no Muslim, nor were the nations wiped out by the Flood when only Noah and his family were deemed worth saving. Neither were the German National Socialists Muslims, who carried off their most spectacular successes of evil in the heartland of historic Western Christianity, and with the actual cooperation of millions of those "Christians." And then we can speak of the atheist Communists, who carried out their 100-million-corpse depredations in the name of the Progress and the Brotherhood of Man!

My point here, is that when we speak of serious, hell-worthy sin, my assertion about "Anyone!" could do this is absolutely correct. Check your Bible.

I can say that even while putting Islam in a special category of evil in today's world, because of their being the aggressive cult of a slave-trading, lecherous, bloody-handed delusional fanatic called Muhammad.

Of course, anyone is capable of any sin (the very definition of total depravity), but not anyone subscribes to a “moral” code that enshrines such depravity as a standard. Looking at it from another perspective, sin can become so pervasive as to become one’s identity. In order to change, its adherents must turn away from everything that they have believed. Muslims who have left the faith understand the cost. Those who look for a protestant-type revolution in Islam are kidding themselves.

As are those who pretend that any Muslim country, sect or person can be trusted—anymore than communists or Nazis. Would we have allowed Nazis and Communist revolutionaries to establish cells in our country during WWII or the Cold War? Why should we do so now? Should we have expatriated the remaining residents of Dresden or Hiroshima, invited Mao or Castro’s “students” to take up residence in our country just prove our compassion? To deny evil is to welcome it.

Your first paragraph I agree with entirely.

Your second paragraph, as to whether "any Muslim country, sect or person can be trusted—anymore than communists or Nazis" --- is not a valid analogy. The valid analogy would be between people who are born Muslims, and people who are born German or Russian. But why?

It's because Muslim law regards every human being as coming into this world as 'naturally' Muslim. Moreover, every child of Muslim parents is a member of the Umma, whether he or she has ever professed or practiced the religion, or even knows anything about it.

In other words, a person can indeed be "born Muslim" without implying personal allegiance to Islam, just as a person could be "born German" or "born Russian" without any personal allegiance to German National Socialism or Soviet Communism.

I would want to put the "bright red line" not at "Were you born Muslim?" but "Do you advocate Shari'a?"

I don't think a personal who advocates shari'a should e allowed on our shores under any circumstrances, not even as a member of a diplomatic delegation from an Islamic country.

Neither do I propose that Muslims per se should be eligible as refugees under pretext of being religious exiles. Alawites, Sufis, Druids and Baha'is, maybe. Christians, yes. Yazidis, yes. Sunni or Shiite Muslims, no.

Your born Muslim conflates nature and nurture. Under your definition, “born Muslim” is equal to raised Muslim. However, even Muslims do not believe that as their constant fratricide proves. If one is a member of the Umma, one is the enemy of everyone else, unless they truly recant their faith(or reject their birthright in your scenario).

I would agree with your Shari’a statement, but that brings us full-circle to the fact that anyone who advocates Shari’a also advocates lying for the cause. There is no way to ascertain that one is telling the truth.

As for the immigration, I would have no problem banning anyone who cannot swear allegiance to the country. I would also have no problem with deporting American natives with the same America-hating sentiments.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.