[stm]

Of course not. This is the US not communist Russia. Stalin outlawed religion, we cannot ban Islam without taking our Constitution and wiping our a$$ with it. It's bad enough we have to deal with leftist whacko's, we don't need to allow ourselves to be influenced by extremists on our side of the isle either.

[slowhandluke]

This is the US not communist Russia. Stalin outlawed religion, we cannot ban Islam without taking our Constitution and wiping our a$$ with it.

I don't agree. We require a loyalty oath for citizenship, which requires support of our constitution. It appears that no muslim can honestly give that oath, and so should not be allowed citizenship. We would not be outlawing religion, per se, only that religion which is incompatibile with our constitution and our sense of liberty (which is definitely not 'liberty as defined under sharia'.)

The Koran teaches that force and guile are both allowed tools to convert the infidel, and if conversion fails, slavery is allowed. Just how tolerant of that am I supposed to be?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The problem is that Muslims make no distinction between religion and political power. Overthrowing secular constitutions and all civil and criminal law, and replacing it with Shari'a law, when possible, is considered to be the religious obligation of the Muslim community.

This is not something that "comes and goes" in Islam, but has been a constant since its foundation. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, recorded that Mohammad ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for opposing his political ascendancy.

I doubt that Islam can be split away from the example and commandments of their "Prophet" --- and that's what it would take to make it compatible with Western society.