SURVEY: Should followers of Islam be allowed to work in Airport Security?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[arjunadawn]

Wrong! Christianity no where mandates violence, and hereins the rub. The notion that current religious actions are divorced from scripture is patently false and this is the underlying premise in all Islamic false logic. This is why jihadi terror attacks have an Orwellian Groundhog Day quality about them when reported. They're always divorced from their source.

Perhaps if western leaders actually studied what they parrot the world would not be shocked that once again Johnny converts and blows himself up or kills parents.

In any event where Christians did this or that they did so without scriptural injunction. Effectively no different then bob the postman, who also robbed a bank. Bob didn't rob a bank because he was Christian. Bob robbed the bank and he's Christian.

I am no apologist for religion but an argument in defense of Islam that appeals to Christianity for its defense, leaks like a sieve.

Posts as on this OP and responses above- let us not forget moral relativity counseling- are a direct result of western leaders offering vacant stares and no narrative as to why Muslim terrorists consistently kill us, each other, particularly hate cars, planes, and even buildings. Insisting it's climate change no jobs or offering no connecting dots at all, people are left to form their own narrative. Islamic State and Islamic terrorism have nothing to do with Islam is a bold lie, and this is the State back stop narrative- denial.

" God furiously commands the chiefs of Israel be impaled in the Sun as means of quenching anger"

Moses commands his subordinates to kill anyone who has married a pagan"

Yes yes...those peace loving christians have no references to inciting violence in their little book called the Bible

The Bible is filled with refernces to insite violence, kill/maim people and commit genocide, your just as blind as the the muslim extremist

When we can pick and choose observations for convenience we can conspire to any sort of conclusion. The fact is, observing texts as above evidences a woeful misunderstanding of Judeochristian/islamic scripture/history. I realize the appeal to equivalency is tempting- for all of us- yet it fails. Islam is incomparable, in many ways.

With regard to Christianity, one can observe that in time, a long time ago, Jewish ancestors did this or that, but they inherit none of the shame.In fact, the dispensations of their god expressly brought new "Word" for which the conduct of their live is exercised. The exercise of Judaism through history, and certainly the present, offers no reason that it would be categorized for comparison. Jews are not exporting Sicari around the world, burning rams, and insisting the rest of us offer red heifers. In fact, successive dispensations and prophets have often superseded their former.

The fact is, Islam grafted upon these two former siblings, encompassed and elaborated whatever JC had to offer in time 1,400 years ago, and offered the latest, and final dispensation of this faith- Islam is entirely the fulfillment of both (thus the adage "people of the book"). This is the final expression of the combined faith of the two antiquities offers as equal. They are only equal in a very narrow intellectual zone. Islam's claim is the final inheritance of the former. To indict Christians and Jews for antiquities is a circle that equally indicts Islam; in fact, it is only Islam that asserts an unbreakable nexus and claim to all three!

Lastly, Islamic injunctions are very much mandates applies in modernity, and are the only religious law equally binding on all others on earth. Hardly similar.

I think the mods have been fair to this point. I must remain closer to the OP. ThkU.

[Thorgal]

It states in the koran that muslims should hack at the necks of none believers,that is advocating murder,so yes I believe muslims should be banned from airport security.

Kindly indicate where in the Koran it states this.

Battle of Badr-

Aba Hakam was severely wounded but still alive when Abdullah, the servant of Muhammad, ran up, put his foot on Aba Hakams neck, got a hold of his beard and started insulting the fatally wounded man whom his own people had named the father of wisdom. Abdullah cut off Abba Hakams head and carried it to his master. "The head of the enemy of Allah!" exclaimed Muhammad joyously; ---- "Allah! There is no other god but he!" - "Yea There is no other!" responded Abdullah, as he cast the severed head at the Prophets feet. "It is more acceptable to me;" cried Muhammad, hardly able to contain his joy, "than the choicest camel in all Arabia.

Besides lots of barbaric examples the Koranic suras possess numerous empathic mandates:

2:191

5:33

8:12 "terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the..."

47:4

9:123,5

2:191, 193

9:29,30

8:17

3:85, 28

22:19

Next, the hadiths and life of the prophet provide equally rich material that is also unambiguous and unequivocal. Worse, because of the doctrine of the Perfect Man, al insan al kamil, the agency of the prophet personally doing these things emblazoned for all time in the collective Islamic psyche the rightness of these acts as pleasing to God. Emulating the Prophet is the highest expression of Right Life. Knowing kind Muslims (as we all do) does not change these truths.

So, here's where in the Koran it says this.

You've provided a passage of the battle of Badr citing the execution of Abu Hakam, ending with "the choisest camel of all Arabia".

Can you provide a link to any Surath or Hadith referring to your opening paragraph ?

Cheers !

[Thaiwine]

Wrong! Christianity no where mandates violence

Yes yes...those peace loving christians have no references to inciting violence in their little book called the Bible

The Bible is filled with refernces to insite violence, kill/maim people and commit genocide, your just as blind as the the muslim extremist

You clearly have no understanding of Christianity. Christianity is defined by the New Testament - not the Old. All the verses you quoted are from the Old Testament.

Jesus taught a doctrine of complete non-violence. For example, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also" (Matthew 5:39).

There is not a single verse in the New Testament that incites violence, maiming, murder or genocide.

Until you have even a modicum of understanding about Christianity I humbly suggest you refrain from commenting on it from a position of ignorance and bigotry.

It appears your speaking for all Christians, the same way radical muslims speak on behalf of all muslims ?

Lets look at some proven facts to support Christians are "nonviolent", this is not a fully incluesive list as the violence committed in the name of christ is that extensive starting in 315 right through to the 20th century

315 to 6th century - thousands of pagans killed

782 - 4500 Saxons killed

1234 - 11000 men women an children killed for not paying church tax

1099 - 60000 killed in jerusalum

Battle of Askalon 200,000 "heathens" killed by followers of Christ

Estimates from all the crusades put the number of deaths at christian hands at 20 million, jews, muslims and anyone else who wasnt a follower of christ

And lets not get into the carnage the christians caused among the native peoples in many countries and continents

Yes those followers of Christ are so non violent and peace loving and turn the othet cheek !

I've just read the Battle of Askalon, losses were 10 to 12,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ascalon

The Fatimids were led by vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, who commanded perhaps as many as 50,000 troops (other estimates range from 20–30,000 to the exaggerated 200,000 of the Gesta Francorum). His army consisted of Seljuk Turks, Arabs, Persians, Armenians, Kurds, and Ethiopians. He was intending to besiege the crusaders in Jerusalem,

Some returned so not all died.

[ammagic]

Please check out www.islamreligionofpeace.com. Quite illuminating. Also just read that Saudi Arabia has issued a video instructing men "how to beat your wife". I think that too many Muslims view us as "infidels". We can only expect more attacks in the West. So no, I do not believe Muslims should work at airports. I did not always feel this way but now I believe Eorope's way of life is threatened now by allowing in so many Muslims. Many of them will not integrate into our way of life & way too many of them wish us harm

[Thaiwine]

Intergration takes generations, if it happens at all.

[luk AJ]

Intergration takes generations, if it happens at all.

I don't want to become moslim! That's how muslims understand integration.

[arjunadawn]

Regarding a previous poster and the Battle of Badr: No, I will not cite sources. The information is everywhere and any perspective moves toward the point offered in my post- it was general, introductory. Beheadings are as much a part of islamic history as hunting relics is for christians.

Islam is expressly developed with opposition to integration. In other words, this is not my take on it. This is not exegesis. In the very bath of its formation islam was confronted with the concept of migration, its benefits, its liabilities, and a highly evolved social/spiritual system was developed that is the foundation for islam. This is not negotiable. Issues of migration are to islam what night is to day.

When nascent islam was forced to flee from Mecca it was during their migration/hijra to Mecca, their tribulations and lessons learned there, and their subsequent rise to power that the islamic template for migration do and do nots were formed. It is not negotiable. A vast majority of islamic scripture- READ

[thai3]

Arjunadawn knows what he's talking about, his experience with the topic is impressive and extensive. I do wish he would cut the flowery language down a notch though.

Edited May 23, 2016 by thai3

[arjunadawn]

Apparently the OP is distilling down to issues of integration/assimilation. Its very easy to reach consensus from a western perspective but its meaningless (and this is why the west has little success with integration) without fundamentally grasping what the prophet of islam has to say about integration. Without that... its just more of the same poor stewardship of the West.

Islam is expressly developed with an opposition to integration. In the very bath of its formation, islam was confronted with the concept/immediacy of migration, its benefits, its liabilities, pains, and its temptations, and a highly evolved social/spiritual system was developed that is the foundation of islam for the past millennia. This is not negotiable. Issues of migration are to islam what night is to day; the two are indivisible.

When nascent islam was forced to flee from Mecca* it was during their migration/hijra to Medina, their tribulations and lessons learned there, and their subsequent rise to power in Medina that the islamic template for migration do and do nots were formed, and codified into scripture/revelation. A vast majority of islamic scripture- READ Majority- pertain less to muslims then to non-muslims. This is a unique feature of islam, and its illustrative. It is also the chief supporting pillar of sharia- the lives of non muslims. Integration was an issue the prophet spoke to specifically, and prescribed very specific behaviors for life in the dar al harb (House of War)- READ where most of you are! Without the caste fabric of sharia sharia ceases!

Non muslims are a vital component of sharia until universal submission is achieved with the second coming of Jesus, al Mahdi, battling al dajjal/iblis, etc. But non muslims are most definitely not anywhere considered equal, soluble with islam. Exceptions do not disprove the rule. It is a rule.

Muslims are sternly admonished in scripture not to take non muslims for friends, integrate, and specifically demands that it is 'better for you to return to the dar al islam (House of Submission/Peace) rather than mingle with non muslims.' (Paraphrase) Hardly room for 'assimilation/integration' with such specificity. When we look to history as a guide to whether such injunctions were practically applied we find there is no single example (ever) of the umma in the dar al harb (non sharia worlds) abandoning their faith and 'integrating.' It is not possible to assimilate and remain muslim; certainly not as a group- UMMA.

What this means for the modern age is a matter of debate as each epoch has unique considerations. But one thing that is not negotiable are facts. Islam envisioned assimilation and expressly rejects it as a vital pillar of their sunna. If people want to debate or reconcile a joint understanding with muslims in their region they had better first begin with the understanding that the muslim umma does not appeal to the same authority as you, recognize the same landmarks in debate, and when they make promises, be clear it is understood exactly what is being agreed to. Islam as a religion is entirely built upon working toward global islam, global submission. It is not interpretative. This is the entire central reason for humans manifested as slaves of Al Lah. Checking muslims background for security work at airports misses the point entirely. The conversation needs to take place first at the policy level of the nation.

*It should be remembered that chief among the reasons the early muslims fled Mecca were a twofold appreciation of a single fact. Muslims asked the Meccans 'Why do you persecute us?" (giving birth to the concept of defensive jihad) and the Meccans consistently responded "We do not persecute you; we only want you to stop offending our gods." (Paraphrase)

[arjunadawn]

Regarding a previous poster and the Battle of Badr: No, I will not cite sources. The information is everywhere and any perspective moves toward the point offered in my post- it was general, introductory. Beheadings are as much a part of islamic history as hunting relics is for christians.

This was posted in error when a finger hit the keyboard. I edited it out entirely after. I thought it rude to respond this way but... I did so by accident.

Arjunadawn knows what he's talking about, his experience with the topic is impressive and extensive. I do wish he would cut the flowery language down a notch though.

3500 posts... my language is not likely going to change. I agree with you entirely. It is more a liability than an asset.

Edited May 23, 2016 by arjunadawn

[Goanna]

Apparently the OP is distilling down to issues of integration/assimilation. Its very easy to reach consensus from a western perspective but its meaningless (and this is why the west has little success with integration) without fundamentally grasping what the prophet of islam has to say about integration. Without that... its just more of the same poor stewardship of the West.

Islam is expressly developed with an opposition to integration. In the very bath of its formation, islam was confronted with the concept/immediacy of migration, its benefits, its liabilities, pains, and its temptations, and a highly evolved social/spiritual system was developed that is the foundation of islam for the past millennia. This is not negotiable. Issues of migration are to islam what night is to day; the two are indivisible.

When nascent islam was forced to flee from Mecca* it was during their migration/hijra to Medina, their tribulations and lessons learned there, and their subsequent rise to power in Medina that the islamic template for migration do and do nots were formed, and codified into scripture/revelation. A vast majority of islamic scripture- READ Majority- pertain less to muslims then to non-muslims. This is a unique feature of islam, and its illustrative. It is also the chief supporting pillar of sharia- the lives of non muslims. Integration was an issue the prophet spoke to specifically, and prescribed very specific behaviors for life in the dar al harb (House of War)- READ where most of you are! Without the caste fabric of sharia sharia ceases!

Non muslims are a vital component of sharia until universal submission is achieved with the second coming of Jesus, al Mahdi, battling al dajjal/iblis, etc. But non muslims are most definitely not anywhere considered equal, soluble with islam. Exceptions do not disprove the rule. It is a rule.

Muslims are sternly admonished in scripture not to take non muslims for friends, integrate, and specifically demands that it is 'better for you to return to the dar al islam (House of Submission/Peace) rather than mingle with non muslims.' (Paraphrase) Hardly room for 'assimilation/integration' with such specificity. When we look to history as a guide to whether such injunctions were practically applied we find there is no single example (ever) of the umma in the dar al harb (non sharia worlds) abandoning their faith and 'integrating.' It is not possible to assimilate and remain muslim; certainly not as a group- UMMA.

What this means for the modern age is a matter of debate as each epoch has unique considerations. But one thing that is not negotiable are facts. Islam envisioned assimilation and expressly rejects it as a vital pillar of their sunna. If people want to debate or reconcile a joint understanding with muslims in their region they had better first begin with the understanding that the muslim umma does not appeal to the same authority as you, recognize the same landmarks in debate, and when they make promises, be clear it is understood exactly what is being agreed to. Islam as a religion is entirely built upon working toward global islam, global submission. It is not interpretative. This is the entire central reason for humans manifested as slaves of Al Lah. Checking muslims background for security work at airports misses the point entirely. The conversation needs to take place first at the policy level of the nation.

*It should be remembered that chief among the reasons the early muslims fled Mecca were a twofold appreciation of a single fact. Muslims asked the Meccans 'Why do you persecute us?" (giving birth to the concept of defensive jihad) and the Meccans consistently responded "We do not persecute you; we only want you to stop offending our gods." (Paraphrase)

Sooo...does this make it ok for islam to keep on murdering innocent people. Attitudes like this are the reason for the op. Muslim should not be allowed in a position able to compromise flight safety.

[Thaiwine]

Sadam was playing poker with the west, he lost.

Omar wouldn't give up bin laden so we had to go get him.

When someone hits you you're going to hit back.

Libya was part of the arab spring, as is most of what's happening in the middle east. arab on arab, civil war

[katana]

I have no religion or religious leader.

But I do not believe anyone should be discriminated against solely because of the imaginary friend they choose to worship.

Unfortunately the thousands of terror attacks carried out by Muslims since 9/11 are not imaginary.

No, not by Muslims.

They were carried out by radical Muslim extremist.

Most Muslims are not radical extremists.

I know a few personally and they are very good, non violent people who want the same safe, peaceful and productive life most people want.

Radical extremist of any sort should be identified and kept from any sensitive situation .

Even radical extremist Christians like KKK members.

Should we target all Christians just because of the horrible things the radical Christian extremist do?

A former muslim's thoughts on the difference between radical and non-radical muslims and the pitfalls of drawing that distinction.

http://fawstin.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/its-name-enemy-not-rename-enemy.html

[F4UCorsair]

Considering that most mass murders in America are committed by Christians, I'd say in general we'd be safer having Muslims take care of security.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1463985908.479951.jpg

But the Christians are not committing mass murders in the name of religion. Muslims are!!!

The mass murders we've seen around the world in recent times, are committed by disenchanted, mentally disturbed, jilted, fired individuals, losers with a hate against society, etc., not by those who want to kill everybody who doesn't fit with the 'ideals' of their religion.

Edited May 23, 2016 by F4UCorsair

[reggaebkk]

Much more relevant:

Should people who watch tv be allowed to vote?

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

[bridge2bridge]

YES they should be banned from working in Airport Security.

Because ISLAM is a violent religion.

And even CONSERVATIVE Muslims DO NOT condemn the RADICAL TERRORIST.

It is too risky to allow this to happen.

Passenger SAFETY is of the utmost importance.

[gandalf12]

Whilst most Muslims do not engage in terrorist activities and condemn those that do, the screening techniques currently used are insufficient to detect those that have intentions in that direction. As such there can not be any chances taken just to boost someones over inflated ego that their system is infallible. Until a system of screening s found that is 100% then Muslims should not be allowed in areas that could if they have the wrong intent, maim or kill innocent people.

Screening is based on what is already known about a person, so a person with a clean record could be targeted by radicals for recruitment because they already work in a sensitive post. This has been the modus operandi for political extremists for years!

Muslim = one who follows the Islamic faith.

Islamists = one who uses Islam to further political ideology.

Using religion to further political ideology isn't new, it happens all the time, which is why separation of church and state is important.

I agree but the separation does not work with Islam. It is the only belief I can think of were a person can be lawfully killed if they are Muslim and renounce the faith. You can not take chances with peoples lives just because you want to be seen to be politically correct. You cannot on the other hand say every Muslim is an extremist or agrees with the actions of same. But as you can not readily identify the good guys from the bad you have no choice but to ensure that people in sensitive positions are not a follower of a religion that has a significant number of extremists.

[ammagic]

Just watching a documentary on the problems gay men who are Muslim in camps in Holland. And these are the young men who are going to "integrate" into our liberal western democracies - I think not!

[ammagic]

Forgot to say that they were subjected to constant & brutal attacks

[siam2007]

Well I must admit I am changing my mind. Used to be very liberal but look at the mess that has got us into. A recent survey by the BBC reveals that almost 40% of Muslims surveyed in the UK do not believe in the freedoms & social equalities we enjoy in the UK. There are over 100 illegal Muslim schools operating in the UK & over 80 Sharia "law courts". How did this happen? Because we were too liberal. It seems to me that this is too big a price to pay

sad but true and applies to virtually every country in Europe.

I am a refugee myself - I fled to Asia. it was a nice move, me thinks....

[F4UCorsair]

Whilst most Muslims do not engage in terrorist activities and condemn those that do, the screening techniques currently used are insufficient to detect those that have intentions in that direction. As such there can not be any chances taken just to boost someones over inflated ego that their system is infallible. Until a system of screening s found that is 100% then Muslims should not be allowed in areas that could if they have the wrong intent, maim or kill innocent people.

Screening is based on what is already known about a person, so a person with a clean record could be targeted by radicals for recruitment because they already work in a sensitive post. This has been the modus operandi for political extremists for years!

Muslim = one who follows the Islamic faith.

Islamists = one who uses Islam to further political ideology.

Using religion to further political ideology isn't new, it happens all the time, which is why separation of church and state is important.

I agree but the separation does not work with Islam. It is the only belief I can think of were a person can be lawfully killed if they are Muslim and renounce the faith. You can not take chances with peoples lives just because you want to be seen to be politically correct. You cannot on the other hand say every Muslim is an extremist or agrees with the actions of same. But as you can not readily identify the good guys from the bad you have no choice but to ensure that people in sensitive positions are not a follower of a religion that has a significant number of extremists.

Apostates, those who desert their religion, in this case islam, can be killed under sharia law, not the law of the western countries in which they live, although I'm sure that's happening.

One would have to observe that if a 'religion' is so afraid of losing members, that they kill those who do desert, there is a serious problem within the 'religion'.

[thai3]

They also kill, or try to those who they see as criticizing it

[F4UCorsair]

Well I must admit I am changing my mind. Used to be very liberal but look at the mess that has got us into. A recent survey by the BBC reveals that almost 40% of Muslims surveyed in the UK do not believe in the freedoms & social equalities we enjoy in the UK. There are over 100 illegal Muslim schools operating in the UK & over 80 Sharia "law courts". How did this happen? Because we were too liberal. It seems to me that this is too big a price to pay

sad but true and applies to virtually every country in Europe.

I am a refugee myself - I fled to Asia. it was a nice move, me thinks....

So as a refugee, you felt that you were in danger in your own country, in fear of persecution on grounds of religion, nationality, race, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, skin color, etc???

If none of the above, you're not a refugee by definition, but somebody who wants/chooses to live elsewhere.

[smotherb]

Mopar71 said,

"OK, people, listen up. As we all know, there are a couple old religious texts that contain a lot of violent things you should do to people who don't believe as you do. What everyone also knows but a few choose to ignore for whatever mysterious reasons is that Muslims take theirs very seriously and go out on a regular basis and try to follow it word for word. Christians on the other hand do not. So trying to draw some sort of equivalence between the two does not work with anyone with any sense."

Oh please, try to keep a train of thought. No one was setting an equivalence; the comments refer to Arjunadawn's statement, "Christianity no where mandates violence":

[wabothai]

What a stupid pole. For what purpose?

very good question if you really dig into matters.

[wabothai]

Muslims, christians, jews or buddhists for that matter. They all have to be thoroughly screened, history has taught us.

To single out just muslims is quite unfair.

[hugh2121]

Should Catholics, Jews and people of other religions also be barred ? Very few Muslims are fanatics and members of Islamic groups. Muslim peoples will be your neighbors all over the world very soon if they are not already. Get over it and welcome them as friends and neighbours.

Only people with narrow views and paranoia will disagree with me. Some of my best friends are Muslims, I was brought up as a Catholic. People are people, religion should not divide us.

And when they succeed in introducing sharia law into the country you live in?

[hugh2121]

Considering that most mass murders in America are committed by Christians, I'd say in general we'd be safer having Muslims take care of security.

What happened on 11th Sept was not committed by Christians but was certainly mass murder.

My neighbours in UK at that time were Pakistani muslims and could not contain their joy when the news broke.