Are Muslims trying to rule the USA?

[robycop3]

Disclaimer: I DO NOT support Islam in any way, shape, or fashion!

There has been a wave of "Islamophobia" around the nation as four Muslims were elected to Congress. There's talk if a "tip of the iceberg", with a wave of Muslims winning office nationwide.

But, is this a real threat, or is it just rhetoric?

First, has Ilhan Omar actually shown any anti-American views? Not so far, & not in her history.
Next, Tlaib has shown she's not a DEVOUT Muslim by her "cussing". Devout Muslims of any branch don't "cuss' in any language; it's considered sinful.

But the answer lies within islam itself. Its 4 major branches, Sunni, Shiite, Wahabi, & Sufi, are too busy killing EACH OTHER to be much of a threat to a major nation. The bombings in Sri Lanka show that; they were directed largely at Sufis by a sub-branch of Wahabi.

Each branch of Islam has its own version of the Koran & each hates the other three as heretics.
Their chances of coming together in unity is ZERO. Whenever they get the chance, they kill each other. You can bet that the Sufis will be looking for revenge for the Easter bombings, despite the fact that the majority of the fatalities were of non-Muslims.

And, in most of the USA, chances of a known Muslim being elected to office is zero. Those who were elected to Congress were chosen by largely-Muslim districts.

The greater danger is in the "Progressives", who are the old liberals hiding behind a new name, people like Ocasio-Cortez who would tax us into a cardboard box if she could.

Let us keep this in Christian perspective, and not cease presenting the Gospel to Muslim & non-Muslim lost alike.

 

[HankD]

For the sake of the debate and assuming (for the sake of the debate) that Islam is the truth
Then all differences will be resolved when the Calif rises to the throne of the Caliphate.
Which for a brief time in history has already happened - the Ottoman Empire.

A great deal of blood has been shed to that end.

"It is the will of Allah" will be the proclamation for the final Caliphate.

"Christendom" has had a similar history and yes even clashing with the Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire.
The Crusades war which really was never definitively resolved evidenced by the severe violence between modern Israel and Islam.

IMO the Islamic "Manifest Destiny" has yet to be realized and is the not-so-secret desire of every Muslim.
Just as every Christian desires Christ to rule in His kingdom.

The methodology of how to get there is the question. Violent "Jihadism" removes the heads of those who do not submit to Allah.

Similar fates were realized during the Catholic versions of the kingdom of God on earth under the Crusades, the Spanish and Latin Inquisitions, etc...

There are many Jihadists within the Islamic religion. Really we don't the percentage and until peace loving Muslims unite in their condemnation of them, they (violent Jihadists) are to be feared

So yes, I guess I am an Islamophobe of sorts and rather than turning the other cheek (well I only have one head to be removed) I will do all in my power to protect me and mine from all those who love violence whatever their view of The ALMIGHTY be they Calif or Pope.

 

[robycop3]

The Crusaders were largely "amateur" warriors, while the OE was led for awhileby Saladin, likely their greatest military mind, during some of the Crusades.

And the OE sat pat for awhile while slowly declining in power. The Russians, especially, craved the waterways they controlled, & set out to conquer them. They caused the Crimean War in 1853, ostensibly using the excuse that the Ottomans were persecuting the Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land, which was untrue. France, Brutain, etc. wanted the Ottomans to keep control of the Bosporus, etc. as they kept them open to all nations' traffic & maintained peace there. It took the Europeans help to defeat Russia & keep the OE intact.

But in WW!, the Ottomans picked the wrong side, and the end of the OE came shortly after that war. However, modern Turkey came from it & has maintained control over the waterways in question, & the Russians know better than to try to take them again.

While Turkey is a stout nation, it's been shown that modern Islamic nations overall cannot compete militarily with the stronger non-Islamic nations, & that's not about to change. But there is a possibility that the antichrist's sidekick, the "beast from the earth", could be a Muslim with a large following. (Or he may be a high RCC official.)

Islam had its run at dominating the world early in its history, & I doubt if it's repeated.

 

[HankD]

The Crusaders were largely "amateur" warriors, while the OE was led for awhileby Saladin, likely their greatest military mind, during some of the Crusades.

And the OE sat pat for awhile while slowly declining in power. The Russians, especially, craved the waterways they controlled, & set out to conquer them. They caused the Crimean War in 1853, ostensibly using the excuse that the Ottomans were persecuting the Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land, which was untrue. France, Brutain, etc. wanted the Ottomans to keep control of the Bosporus, etc. as they kept them open to all nations' traffic & maintained peace there. It took the Europeans help to defeat Russia & keep the OE intact.

But in WW!, the Ottomans picked the wrong side, and the end of the OE came shortly after that war. However, modern Turkey came from it & has maintained control over the waterways in question, & the Russians know better than to try to take them again.

While Turkey is a stout nation, it's been shown that modern Islamic nations overall cannot compete militarily with the stronger non-Islamic nations, & that's not about to change. But there is a possibility that the antichrist's sidekick, the "beast from the earth", could be a Muslim with a large following. (Or he may be a high RCC official.)

Islam had its run at dominating the world early in its history, & I doubt if it's repeated.

Time will tell.

 

[rsr]

Next, Tlaib has shown she's not a DEVOUT Muslim by her "cussing". Devout Muslims of any branch don't "cuss' in any language; it's considered sinful.

Not quite. Cursing people who "possess traits of disbelief, oppression or lewdness" is permissible.

Its 4 major branches, Sunni, Shiite, Wahabi, & Sufi, are too busy killing EACH OTHER to be much of a threat to a major nation.

This is much overblown. Calling each other heretics and killing them is primarily a Wahabi trait. Sufism is not strictly a branch because it can include both Sunni and Shia. Wahabi is technically a Sunni faction, although many Sunnis wish it were not so. Until the 20th century Wahabi Islam was largely confined to the Arabian peninsula; the Saudis' oil money made it possible to export this extreme brand of Islam throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Each branch of Islam has its own version of the Koran & each hates the other three as heretics.

There is only one Koran. Various branches and sub-branches, however have their own hadiths.

 

[rsr]

The Crusaders were largely "amateur" warriors, while the OE was led for awhileby Saladin, likely their greatest military mind, during some of the Crusades.

This is manifestly untrue. The People's Crusade of amateurs, aside from killing defenseless Jews, did nothing noteworthy expect being slaughtered in battle with the Seljuks. The First Crusade of knights and nobles, however, recaptured much of Anatolia and Syria, as well as Jerusalem. Far from being "amatuers," they were the cream of the crop of Western European knighthood.

Saladin was from the Kurdish Ayyubida Empire, in no way associated with the Seljuk of Ottoman Turks.

The Second Crusade was a stinker, but the Third Crusade (accomplished most of its goals, except the recapture of Jerusalem.

The Fourth Crusade was a travesty of historic proportions; the Venetians hijacked the crusade to capture Constantinople, its mercantile rival, weakening the Byzantine Empire that had stood for centuries as a bulwark against Muslim expansion into Europe.

And the OE sat pat for awhile while slowly declining in power.

You are conflating the Seljuk Turks and the Ottomans. The Mongols smashed the Seljuks, and the Ottomans only gradually arose to power in Anatolia.

While Turkey is a stout nation, it's been shown that modern Islamic nations overall cannot compete militarily with the stronger non-Islamic nations, & that's not about to change.

This is a most interesting assertion. It is generally a truism that nations of whatever stripe cannot complete militarily with stronger nations, of whatever stripe. But in an age of unsymmetrical warfare, "weak" nations can inflict lots of pain on "stronger" nations. ISIS managed to capture and hold wide swaths of the Middle East. Pakistan has the bomb and menaces the much larger nation of India.

But there is a possibility that the antichrist's sidekick, the "beast from the earth", could be a Muslim with a large following. (Or he may be a high RCC official.)

Or it's possible they're from Chicago and are Pentecostal.

Islam had its run at dominating the world early in its history, & I doubt if it's repeated.

Quite possibly. The next world empire will be China, which is really the triumph of Confucianism without the ameliorating effects of Taosim and Buddhism.

As for religious wars: The Europeans and the Muslim rulers often allied with each other during the crusades to meet their own political objectives. Not much different from today, when theoretical ideological opponents team up for their own benefit.

 

[Revmitchell]

Are Muslims trying to rule the USA?

Yep

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In areas where they are the majority, have Muslims attempted to fundamentally change the laws of their communities? Yes, throughout history, throughout the world.

Oh, but American Muslims will be different, right? Wrong. How naïve can we be?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Most importantly, evangelism among Muslim communities is imperative. Forget pro-Israel, anti-Israel. This is about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.