This quote below comes from a Pastor friend in Kenya which I received last night.
"The government has recommended that Pastors take up arms -- firearms -- following recent assassinations of pastors near Mombasa. It is rumored that Al Shabaab is offering a $125,000 bounty on pastors' heads. The government has signed an arrangement to repatriate more than a million Somali refugees, of whom 600,000 are documented and an estimated 500,000 undocumented. The refugees have brought significant security problems for the country, but it remains to be seen whether they will be happy to return to Somalia."

Islam has no national boundaries nor do the factions of Islam. The radical factions will dominate by fear and assassination.

Gentle men it may well appear as if I am the mad hatter from Alice's journeys.
But with true thought not imagining I think we are part of an experiment.
America became a great nation in no small part because of its open arms migration plan.
We prospered greatly by our postwar door opening rush to grow.
I think at some level just as Monarchs once got together, some group thought/still thinks they can breed the differences out of us.
They got it wrong.
The Religion and its many different interpretations is the trouble.
No regard for this country,s culture by both those who give trouble and every politician who bought them, highlights we contributed to the problem.

Belly, as you know I'm not a Jesus Freaky or a Happy Clapper, I'm not even a Presbyterian, little own a Muslim. I'm am an unashamed atheist. I very much think like you, I believe the world in general would be better off without organized religions and god is no more that a figment of mans imagination to explain the unexplainable.
If it could be clearly demonstrated any organisation, including a religion, was nothing more than a front for criminals and their criminal activities then society should expect, indeed demand, action be taken against that front organisation. If a religion could be clearly shown to be purely a front for terrorism and nothing more, then the community should expect action, just as they should expect action be taken against a clearly criminal organsiation such as a bikie gang, who are all about crime and nothing about motorcycles.
Banning is not easy, in the wrong hands it is a very dangerous weapon and it has been used by many throughout history to serve their ends and not the people. Clearly there are criminals who purport to be Muslim, as there are criminals who claim Christianity as their religion, that in itself does not make the religion criminal but it doesn't excuse the individuals either.
I often accuse the Catholic Church of being a criminal organisation, not because of crimes committed by individuals within the church, and they have been numerous amongst their clergy, but because the hierarchy from the top down has extensively engaged in a wide spread cover up of crimes within, that to me makes the Catholic Church a criminal organisation. Has it reach a point where massive action should be taken against the church as a whole, probable not yet. I do however believe a thorough investigation of the Catholic Church in the poorest and most populated countries it controls would uncover church abuse on a huge scale, and then the answer could be different.

I find it a bit ironic that an add for Muslima, a Muslim matrimonial site is appearing next to this discussion,

Is Mise , give me a shock and stop playing petty games.
Yes, there are White Muslims, but how many? 1% or less?
And those come from countries like Albania and Bosnia, where other criteria (assets, IQ, literacy) would exclude most of them.

Tony Lavis , you are describing Christianity centuries ago.
Muslims are doing those nasty things *today*.
And Christians didn't “invade” Europe. They *were* Europeans. They converted.

one under god “100 years ago,..most Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate “

An empire build by force, like any other.
And dominated by Turks, not Arabs.
The Arabs revolted against them, remember?

The British (and French) only ruled the Middle East for a couple of decades.
If these new borders were so unsatisfactory, the liberated Arabs could have dissolved them immediately upon independence. They didn't.

The British Empire was “multiethnic” too. The conquered peoples didn't suddenly stop being Indian or African.
Their cultures still survive today.

When the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia dissolved, they formed, you guessed it, ethnic-based nations.
That should tell us something about human nature vs ideology, hmmm?

The history of all these, and other, conflicts should tell us how stupid and dangerous mixing different peoples together can be.
Like most other cases, this will end in war.

And a really messy one, considering how many “peoples” will be involved.

The global contribution to immigration, and its pan-Western context, may even mean it escalates into a truly “world war”, as foreign nations refuse to remain neutral after seeing news reports of “their” people being attacked.

So Pakistan declares war on Britain, Turkey on Germany, Mexico on the US, etc.
Everyone fighting everyone.
The war to end all wars. Or possibly Mankind.

Is it worth risking this for a utopian fairytale, only suitable for children under 4?

Well Shockadelic, here it will probably end up with a war between the
Chinese and the Arabs. Two more different peoples I cannot imagine.

I would bet on the Chinese winning probably because China would support
the Chinese side and the Chinese do not marry their cousins so that
gives them a head start, literally ! Pun intended.

Perhaps we Anglos can sit on the sidelines and watch from New Zealand.