The Islamic purports that the religion of Islam does not compel the infidels to forsake their religions, nor does Islam subscribe to acts of violence. To dispel these assertions I submit the following passages from the Holy Book of Islam:
Quran 9:25 “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Quran 9:5 “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”
Quran 9:30 “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say:
The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Surah 98:7 states “The unbelievers among the people of the Book [Jews and Christians] and pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell,”
Surah 66:9 finds Allah telling Mohammed to “make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal with them sternly. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate.”
According to the passages alluded too, it is apparent that infidels are not accepted without conditions. I do not consider compulsory payment, or compulsory renouncing of ones religion in favor of another, to not be compelling. Further, the acts of force and violence to achieve a dominance of Islam over all other religions is pretty much validated in the passages, as noted above, from the Holy Book of Islam. The fact that Islam subscribes to a Theocratic form of government and there is only the Deity of Islam, any person who is an infidel will be considered third rate and will not be considered for any office of eminence.
To buttress and strengthen my argument further, I need only reference a letter sent to former President G. W. Bush from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran and a devout follower of the Islamic Religion. Excerpts of the letter and observations as presented in the San Francisco Chronicle (May 10, 2006), are as follows:
—liberal democracies are collapsing—“Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.”—United States give up the liberal democratic secular system and turn more toward religion—. The letter was rife with inferences indicating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is monotheistic and the only Deity is the Deity of Islam.
September 2010 a rogue Christian Minister was touting the burning of Korans (Qurans) in deference to the memory of the near 3000 innocent victims of the 9/11/2001 Twin Towers attack; an attack that was perpetrated by Radical Muslim Fundamentalists. The response to this intended burning was presented by a notorious Islamic leader, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail, to a crowd of tens of thousands of Muslim faithfuls; and stated in part:—“we come to respond to this criminal, this liar, this crazy priest who reflects a crazy Western attitude toward Islam and the Muslim nation. We came to say the Koran is our constitution, we are committed to God and his holy book. God willing, should they try to carry out their crime against the Koran, God will tear their state apart and they will become God’s lesson to anyone who tries to desecrate the holy book.”
The Founding Fathers of our nation had the infinite wisdom to realize that a guarantee of freedom and liberty to a society was dependent on the rule of law. The law was not intended to control the people it was intended to control a potential oppressive government, and our Constitution does just that; however, the constitution of the Islamists, the Quran (Koran), is a direct opposite. The Quran definitely controls the people, and even if the Quran was not in conflict with our rule of law, a society cannot have more than one Constitution. As John Adams stated, “we are a nation of laws not a nation of men.”
I believe it is time for the exalted elite in this country to engage in deference to the principles set forth by our Founding Fathers of this nation:
“Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease.”—Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt, 1919
My answer to the question, Can A Devout Islamic Be A Dedicated United States Citizen, is categorically: NO; however, You Make The Call.
1 For the purpose of this writing American is a U.S. Citizen
2016 Presidential Candidates
The presidential election campaign was far from what would be considered conventional. With the inclusion of an outside the “beltway cabal” candidate, the elitist establishment politicians certainly had their under shorts in a wad. Inclusion of the non-establishment candidate created a situation where policies affecting the general populous were being supplanted by rabid attacks on the character of the “outsider.” The rabid attacks were being promulgated by not only the inside beltway establishment politicians but also an extremely liberal biased mainstream media. The campaign morphed into nothing more than a choice of which flawed candidate was more acceptable.
On the left hand there was a candidate that has spent her entire adult life involved in government. Though this might be considered a definite plus, you must acknowledge that her accomplishments are not sans criticisms. While acting as Secretary of State she committed acts that definitely gave the appearance of corrupt behavior. Her most qualifying attributes are the insatiable lust for money and the penchant for prevaricating. These attributes are compounded with voraciousness for power and control, which completes the package.
“The only way to make a difference