A Muslim-Dominant Society

[hdssh]

I find most of the comments made here extremely disturbing given the mixed expression of fear, antagonism, and simplification of what is a very complex culture. I happen to live in an African nation which is a strong mix of religions including Islam. I agree religious differences can spark aggression, and in many cases does, but violent aggression is not necessarily a normative state of affairs.

HOWEVER: as someone who is a long term Christian in a country troubled by many ills (including those related to religion - viz: apartheid in the name of Christianity), and ills by which the difficulties of the USA pale by comparison, I am daily faced with this challenge: the multiple biblical injunctions to love your enemy.

So I ask in response to the comments in this thread: how do you love the Muslim, if, as many here seem to indicate, you see them as an enemy?

 

[outlawState]

Apartheid in the name of Christianity)

What of it? The Jews practised apartheid under the Old Testament, and still do, at least the "orthodox." No one complains about them.

So I ask in response to the comments in this thread: how do you love the Muslim, if, as many here seem to indicate, you see them as an enemy?

Each case is an individual basis. There can be no generality as Jesus himself showed by the parable of the good samaritan. Love is situation dependent, and respondent dependent. Aparthied may be a form of love, but OTOH, some muslims don't make much of its racist elements and have proved themselves able to co-exist with Christians on an equal basis.

Apartheid arises naturally with respect to Islam, as muslims tend to colocate into muslim communities or ghettos, and this often tends to exclude others. India and Pakistan were divided on this very basis - muslims one side, other religions the other. In the UK there are many muslim ghettos. Let's not forget that Islam is a fundamentally racist religion. It isn't inherently any different from white supremacism, except its arab supremacism.

 

[hdssh]

What of it? The Jews practised apartheid under the Old Testament, and still do, at least the "orthodox." No one complains about them.

I simply can't quite wrap my head around this ... my mind boggles! But perhaps that's because I lived under apartheid and cannot see how it can be used as a neutral word. Having witnessed and experienced apartheid's deprivation of fundamental respect for human life, the oppression of people, the murder and incarceration of individuals who simply asked to be treated as equals (many of them Christian), and all because of skin color while defended by a twisted biblical theology - I cannot see how "apartheid" could be used with neutral connotation nor equated with the Jewish old testament behavior!

But on your other point, that "Let's not forget that Islam is a fundamentally racist religion": well, I'm not negating that, although I'm not sure "racist" is the right term (Muslim's are not defined by race). But that aside, that someone else is doing reprehensible things does not negate my responsibility as a Christian to love them. And I take "to love them" to mean "to act in such a way as to draw them closer to Jesus".

 

[2 know him]

Moslems have been slaughtering infidels for over 1,400 years. It is a violent ideology, hell bent on world domination and the elimination of all infidels. The slaves were introduced to Christianity. Those bombs during WWII saved countless millions of lives by stopping Japan from further attacks. You need to read up on history before you start comparing apples and mushrooms.

Those who are behind America are working to change all nations to control them as they do America. While you are upset

Moslems have been slaughtering infidels for over 1,400 years. It is a violent ideology, hell bent on world domination and the elimination of all infidels. The slaves were introduced to Christianity. Those bombs during WWII saved countless millions of lives by stopping Japan from further attacks. You need to read up on history before you start comparing apples and mushrooms.

You mean like the history of the Catholic church and the crusaders? Or are you referring to Hitler who and all those who fought behind him in the name of Christ? Which western leader didn't claim to be Christian and rally those professed Christians behind them to fight their wars?

 

[outlawState]

I simply can't quite wrap my head around this ... my mind boggles! But perhaps that's because I lived under apartheid and cannot see how it can be used as a neutral word. Having witnessed and experienced apartheid's deprivation of fundamental respect for human life...

Well there's different sorts of it, obviously. The point is you can't generalize. You have to be specific as to what you're talking about. Apartheid often means no more than segregation. If it has another connotation, you'll have to explain.

But on your other point, that "Let's not forget that Islam is a fundamentally racist religion": well, I'm not negating that, although I'm not sure "racist" is the right term (Muslim's are not defined by race). But that aside, that someone else is doing reprehensible things does not negate my responsibility as a Christian to love them. And I take "to love them" to mean "to act in such a way as to draw them closer to Jesus".

Islam promotes Arabic as the language of God and Arabs as the chosen people. The only valid Koran is in Arabic, so if you want to read it, you'll need to learn arabic. In fact you'll need to become an Arab.

There are a lot of silly people who claim to have "converted" but they often have no idea what they're doing. Anyway I wish you success and wisdom in your dealings with Islam, but I think that they will respect you more if you know something about it, like it originated from Ba'al worship!

 

[archer75]

Islam promotes Arabic as the language of God and Arabs as the chosen people. The only valid Koran is in Arabic, so if you want to read it, you'll need to learn arabic. In fact you'll need to become an Arab.

How would one "become" an Arab?

Also, isn't Classical Arabic extremely different from the modern Arabic dialects?

 

[BukiRob]

You are quite right. The term "Progressive" though is not only a misnomer, but a constantly changing one. Half a century ago, folks didn't even realize that we had been infiltrated by the good ol Marxists right in the Universities. We thought they were just deluded kids out there protesting the war.
They were protesting the war alright - the communists here were protesting our war with the communists there. There were leaders that had gone into the colleges and then posed as "revolutionaries" opposed to war and killing. To an extent that was correct. They were opposed to our killing their brethren over there who were butchering peaceful citizens to foment a "popular" revolution via intimidation.
Well, now they rule our colleges and universities, have graduated many teachers who are now in the K through 12 programs, and welcoming the globalist/UN Common Core that furthers the whole cause.
I've looked at textbooks in several of our local gradeschools and it ain't good atall. Many of these books don't get sent home where parents might see what is being pushed through and by them onto little Suzy and Johnny.
We've lost a fierce amount of ground. It's hard getting enough people fired up. We almost failed in this past election. It was much closer than people think. Fortunately, our Creator still has enough mercy and pity on us clowns or Hillary would be staring down her gun barrels at us now.

So true. The lunacy at UC Berkeley is a perfect example. The radical left is so anti free-speech that they are currently rioting violently and shut down Milo Yiannopoulos. Things got so intense that Milo had to be evacuated.

UC Berkeley should be shamed publicly for allowing this kind of behavior.

The damage that has been done will take a generation to repair and that is if radical teachers are fired and arrested when they do are advocating through a bull horn that "White people give us all your *bleep *money, we want your *bleep* homes we want it all...."

That is not free speech. That is inciting violence and should NOT be tolerated.

 

[archer75]

I don't suppose anyone cares what I think, but I agree that many of the various forms of screaming associated with certain (not all) college campuses are pretty lame.

They don't mean what they say, as many on the right don't, either. They're hypocrites at best.

Students at elite colleges are in a tough spot, socially: they spent all of adolescence being screamed at not to get pregnant / impregnate anyone. They were told from early childhood that "college" was the grand goal of existence, and that any deviation from the prescribed path would result in loss of "college" and therefore of life itself. Then at college there's really nothing to do. Of course some of them act out. Their minds are utterly undisciplined, and one of the main natural interests of young people (sex / marriage / relationships) is totally forbidden to them or twisted into an unrecognizable form.

 

[hdssh]

Apartheid often means no more than segregation. If it has another connotation, you'll have to explain.

Well, there's the dominant usage: Apartheid - Wikipedia
The secondary applications of the term almost all include some form of discrimination, not merely separation. Apartheid (disambiguation) - Wikipedia
For my own experience, it is the first of the above usages that is evoked when I hear the term, and in my travels outside South Africa (including a number of years in the USA) is the one first assumed as the root concept.

In fact you'll need to become an Arab.

I'm not sure I understand that necessity.

Anyway I wish you success and wisdom in your dealings with Islam, but I think that they will respect you more if you know something about it, like it originated from Ba'al worship!

Thanks ... my engagements are mostly with individuals who have unique approaches; mutual respect has not been a problem, and the discussions are best when I remember to listen more than I talk. But I do know converts out of Islam ... and I would be the last to deny the reality of their personal relationship with Jesus. However, yes, I accept there are some labeled converts who have had other reasons for carrying the label - but it's rare in my experience (and of course there are many cultural Christians whose behavior leaves one wondering).

Its a good point about knowing the origins - something I wish more people would expend some effort on. Of course this applies not only to knowing about Islam, but also to understanding (as best one can) the underpinnings of the rest of secular (but spiritual) post-Christian society if we want to engage with them.

But I fear I am now getting off the thread's primary topic.

 

[AACJ]

I find most of the comments made here extremely disturbing given the mixed expression of fear, antagonism, and simplification of what is a very complex culture. I happen to live in an African nation which is a strong mix of religions including Islam. I agree religious differences can spark aggression, and in many cases does, but violent aggression is not necessarily a normative state of affairs.

HOWEVER: as someone who is a long term Christian in a country troubled by many ills (including those related to religion - viz: apartheid in the name of Christianity), and ills by which the difficulties of the USA pale by comparison, I am daily faced with this challenge: the multiple biblical injunctions to love your enemy.

So I ask in response to the comments in this thread: how do you love the Muslim, if, as many here seem to indicate, you see them as an enemy?

It is strange that you are equating acknowledging someone as your enemy with not loving them.

It is possible to love one's enemey, as God's Word makes clear. And of course being knowledgeable of who or what is your enemy is a different topic from the topic of being commanded to love the enemy. Christians should not accuse someone of not loving their enemy simply because they are knowledgeable of, and state, who their enemy is.

You are apparently presuming that the act of regarding Muslims, in general, as the enemy equates to not loving Muslims themselves. Of course that is an error on your part. And, like some others on this thread, you apparently believe that The Church should impose the same standards on a nation, as a whole, as would be applied to individual Christians. That is, I believe, a serious mistake. I believe it's a mistake to claim that the covenant rights and Privileges that apply to individual Christians also applies to a nation as a whole when said nation contains a large population of unsaved, God-hating persons.

If you refuse entry into your personal home to someone that you believe presents an immediate danger to your household, are you not loving them? I think not, not if God has not commanded otherwise in that particular situation. Just because I, as a Christian who is under the protection of the Almighty, can safely allow a Muslim to stay in my home, this does not mean I should impose the same thing on a person who is godless. Should I tell a godless person that they should allow a Muslim to stay within the walls of their home and that they will be safe in doing so? Of course not.

Indeed, as a Christian who is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, God Almighty just might tell me to allow a Muslim to move into my home to stay for a certain period of time. And if He does so, Then he will provide the grace to make it so. But you see, I have access to God's divine provision in terms of protection and other things. But can I say the same for a nation that is composed, to a great extent, of people that has rejected God? Should the nation of America just allow the enemy to flood its borders when so many in America have rejected God's divine protection? America is not the Praying nation it once was. However, that being said, over the last two years I have noticed a significant change in this regard. I believe that change will continue.

Muslims are of course the enemy of the Cross just as the godless, in general, are. They are also the enemy of historical Western values and the U.S. Constitution if they are truly Koranic Muslims. And of course even Muslims, who are Muslims in name only, will still resist the Christian interest as it relates to the formation of law, just as atheists will.

I agree religious differences can spark aggression, and in many cases does, but violent aggression is not necessarily a normative state of affairs.

"...Not necessarily a normative state of affairs"? Interesting way you phrased that by including the word "necessary." This of course is relative to what part of Africa you live in. Do you live in a largely Christianized area?

Now, do you care to address the arguing points in the OP? Muslims negatively altering laws and forming anti-Christian law is normative the world over?

 

[outlawState]

How would one "become" an Arab?

You become an Arab by treating the arabs as your brothers and sisters and as family.

Also, isn't Classical Arabic extremely different from the modern Arabic dialects?

They say that Koran Arabic is quite easy. I could imagine that as Mahomet was illiterate and no scholar. So what he said was probably quite crude, as reflects his character.

 

[emily johnston]

Here is something for everyone to think about:

What would a dominant Muslim America look like? I'm referring to population. Would the US Constitution even still be around at that point? Would the Constitution be so unrecognizable as to equate to it's very extinction?

I am continually amazed at how so many Americans seem to think that laws and norms are established outside people's worldviews. Laws will tend to reflect the predominant worldview in Western societies because people do not establish laws and norms that do not reflect their personal values. Why? Well it should be obvious that laws are not established without moral justification and that moral justification will reflect personal values.

Muslims in Western societies are growing at a rate of about 8 to 10 times the rate of growth for Western populations. The "all belief systems are equal" philosophy that has taken hold of secularly influenced societies that have, to a great extent, rejected God's Word, is inevitably leading to Western cultures being dominated by a Muslim population. The situation is made much more worse in the West because certain godless practices (such as abortions) have reduced birth rates among people holding to certain Western values, while Muslims continue to have about eight kids per family.

Muslim populations are already flexing their weight and influence in the formation and reformation of laws in Western nations. They are exerting their influence on our laws more and more as their population increase. In addition, I've noticed a pattern wherein Muslim communities become more proactive and bold in this regard as they gain confidence as their numbers increase.

This is what inclusivity of worldviews leads to, logically: domination by those cultures or families reproducing at a much greater rate than what is occurring in native Western families. This type of negative inclusivity--where people believe that a person with non-western belief values should be allowed to grow in number, without any restraint, and to hold office and leadership position--is contrary to early American culture.

There was a time in our nation when people with anti-American/Judaeo Christian beliefs could not prosper to the extent that someone holding to Christian/western values could. One reason for this is that fact that early Americans could deny goods, services, and employment to whomever they chose. Imagine being a Muslim in a Christian community and not being able to get a job because no one will hire you. Would this tend to encourage immigrants to conform to Christian/Western values? Yes, I believe so. But of course now, Americans have been stripped of that power to self-regulate their communities through buying and selling to whomever they will and to employ whomever they will. Certain non-discrimination laws have, in my opinion, created a greater evil than they have potentially solved.

One of the ways to determine if American culture and law is being misinterpreted or erroneously altered is to follow where such interpretation and/or alteration seems to inevitably lead. Imagine a dominant Muslim America, where the Constitution is either nonexistent or either so altered that it is no longer recognizable. Since unchecked and rapid growth of Muslims in Western cultures logically leads to such and end, does this not indicate that US law has been altered contrary to the Founders intent? Would there be any "peace, liberty, and justice for all" in a Muslim-dominant America"?

These problems have been compounded by the fact that young people in colleges and universities have been provided a sort of substitute religion. They are literally being brainwashed into believing that the highest and righteous goal in life is to make sure that all belief systems are given equal access and opportunity to prosper in any given society. Man is deified and honored above God and his righteousness. This is their new religion, and they are fanatical about it. This has led to racist-hunters and bigotry-hunters who not only do not understand what constitutes true racism and bigotry, but they are also being conditioned to believe that bigotry and racism lurks under every every bush and around every corner, and that one of their highest goals and duties in life should be to completely eradicate what they're defining as racism and bigotry. "When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail."

They are being erroneously taught that race and culture should never be a factor in any kind of determination of someone's judgment and potential influence as it relates to their defined doctrine of inclusivity (unless of course they are engaging in their favorite activities of racism hunting and bigotry hunting). This is what happens when the light of the Gospel is removed from government and society. Man will always find a substitute, and that substitute ushers in the darkness that floods the minds, hearts, and souls of men and the societies they establish.

Hello!
Firstly, I must point out that our government is secular, meaning that government is ideally not affiliated, according to the secular theology, with religion. That being said, when Trump was inaugurated there were many mentions of the Bible and God, and he rules "according to Christian beliefs." (Though in reality, the things he advocates for go against the Christian religion). Since our government is secular, there would be theoretically no change if the majority of the population were to identify as Muslim. As for your questions about Constitution, since the very nature of our laws and actions must remain constitutional, it would be impossible for the Supreme Court (no matter who was on it) to rescind the Constitution, as that action itself would be unconstitional. The current President has already signed several executive orders which have been deemed unconstitutional, and lied to us (about something as petty as crowd size) on his first day of office. I am more worried about this Christian president than I am worried about Muslims. (Though I am not at all worried about Muslims). Now, you might ask: Isn't Isis Muslim? Well, yes and no. Yes they identify as Muslim, but they do not follow any of the Muslim ideology or laws outlined in the Qur'an. The things they do are glaringly anti-Muslim. Just like the things our President does are glaringly anti-Christian. Since they don't religiously follow the Muslim religion, it is not that which has made them into hateful terrorists. Therefore, I do not think of Isis as a group of Muslim terrorists. In fact, you should never typify a group/religion/race of people as predominantly terrorists just because a fractionally minuscule amount of them have committed these hateful acts. Nobody has ever typified European Christians as torturers or terrorists, even though they most definitely did this in "the name of God" during the early modern era, when conquistadors/explorers from Spain forced an entire foreign population to convert to Christianity, with the threat of torture and death if they disobeyed. These conquistadors' actions do not match the word of God, and these people do not represent the Christian religion. Therefore we don't classify all Christians as terrorists and torturers because of the influence of their religion, because we know this is not true and it would be idiotic to classify an entire race/religion as such. Muslims should be treated the same way.

From the content of your original post, I think you are asking more than a hypothetical question that relates to our government's organization.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are sister religions. If you take a look back in history, they all originated in a similar way and in accordance to each other's influence. They all teach those who follow it to be kind and to love a single, monotheistic God.

I would like to know why you wish for Muslims to stop growing in numbers. Firstly, the average amount of children per Muslim family is about 3, not 8. Secondly, shouldn't all religions be granted to right to procreate as they please? I don't understand why you wish to discourage Muslims from being accepted in America, when their religion (apart from the sharia--though Christianity also has certain elements of patriarchy) preaches nothing but love and acceptance. So what if America is predominantly Muslim? I'm a happy Christian, and my happiness extends to everyone regardless of their religious affiliation, just like the Bible has taught me to. The separation of church and state was a smart decision and means that laws will not change because of what the majority of the population affiliates with religiously.

Anyways
Have a wonderful day! Much love to my fellow human

 

[AACJ]

Hello!
Firstly, I must point out that our government is secular, meaning that government is ideally not affiliated, according to the secular theology, with religion. That being said, when Trump was inaugurated there were many mentions of the Bible and God, and he rules "according to Christian beliefs." (Though in reality, the things he advocates for go against the Christian religion). Since our government is secular, there would be theoretically no change if the majority of the population were to identify as Muslim. As for your questions about Constitution, since the very nature of our laws and actions must remain constitutional, it would be impossible for the Supreme Court (no matter who was on it) to rescind the Constitution, as that action itself would be unconstitional. The current President has already signed several executive orders which have been deemed unconstitutional, and lied to us (about something as petty as crowd size) on his first day of office. I am more worried about this Christian president than I am worried about Muslims. (Though I am not at all worried about Muslims). Now, you might ask: Isn't Isis Muslim? Well, yes and no. Yes they identify as Muslim, but they do not follow any of the Muslim ideology or laws outlined in the Qur'an. The things they do are glaringly anti-Muslim. Just like the things our President does are glaringly anti-Christian. Since they don't religiously follow the Muslim religion, it is not that which has made them into hateful terrorists. Therefore, I do not think of Isis as a group of Muslim terrorists. In fact, you should never typify a group/religion/race of people as predominantly terrorists just because a fractionally minuscule amount of them have committed these hateful acts. Nobody has ever typified European Christians as torturers or terrorists, even though they most definitely did this in "the name of God" during the early modern era, when conquistadors/explorers from Spain forced an entire foreign population to convert to Christianity, with the threat of torture and death if they disobeyed. These conquistadors' actions do not match the word of God, and these people do not represent the Christian religion. Therefore we don't classify all Christians as terrorists and torturers because of the influence of their religion, because we know this is not true and it would be idiotic to classify an entire race/religion as such. Muslims should be treated the same way.

From the content of your original post, I think you are asking more than a hypothetical question that relates to our government's organization.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are sister religions. If you take a look back in history, they all originated in a similar way and in accordance to each other's influence. They all teach those who follow it to be kind and to love a single, monotheistic God.

I would like to know why you wish for Muslims to stop growing in numbers. Firstly, the average amount of children per Muslim family is about 3, not 8. Secondly, shouldn't all religions be granted to right to procreate as they please? I don't understand why you wish to discourage Muslims from being accepted in America, when their religion (apart from the sharia--though Christianity also has certain elements of patriarchy) preaches nothing but love and acceptance. So what if America is predominantly Muslim? I'm a happy Christian, and my happiness extends to everyone regardless of their religious affiliation, just like the Bible has taught me to. The separation of church and state was a smart decision and means that laws will not change because of what the majority of the population affiliates with religiously.

Anyways
Have a wonderful day! Much love to my fellow human

Mmmmmm. Not sure whether to laugh or sorrow over the content of your post. I have yet to come across a post so filled with mis-information, mis-representation and logical fallacy.

 

[SolomonVII]

Mmmmmm. Not sure whether to laugh or sorrow over the content of your post. I have yet to come across a post so filled with mis-information, mis-representation and logical fallacy.

Cry.
So much opinion, so few substantiated facts.

 

[hdssh]

Mmmmmm. Not sure whether to laugh or sorrow over the content of your post. I have yet to come across a post so filled with mis-information, mis-representation and logical fallacy.

I'm frequently amazed at how diverse we are. I read the earlier comment by Emily as being thoughtful, perceptive, and objectively defensible, yet obviously you see something very different. I'm never quire sure how to get around this without us having dinner together!

What would a dominant Muslim America look like?

On one level, my thinking often goes as follows: I live in a nation that sometimes calls itself "The rainbow nation" (nothing to do with LGBT) because of the incredible diversity of culture, language, and experience (we have 11 official languages!). As a nation we are struggling with the reality of this concept even though it finds strong resonance among everyone, and we struggle with democracy because we do not have the centuries of experience to draw on that the USA does. Yet our trajectory has been slowly toward stability, and Christians have been at the center of this change. Likewise, I would suggest that even a Muslim dominated USA could be able to find the stability of a cultural collective without loss of constitutional freedoms and checks and balances.

On a spiritual level, I suggest the answer is a spectrum of possibilities depending on (a) how Christians engage with protecting the rule of law, independence of the justice system, and integrity of the constitution, and (b) what will be the Christian response to their neighbor while the Muslim proportion grows numerically - aggression, protectionism, or evangelism. My favorite passage from the Bible speaks to this, I believe. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23: 19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Maybe I'm unreasonably an optimist, but Jesus is with me, and the great commission will not disappear until he comes again.

 

[outlawState]

Hello!
it would be idiotic to classify an entire race/religion as such. Muslims should be treated the same way.

Not so. I'm afraid you are echoing muslim propaganda. Islam is not just "another religion" to be treated on a par with Christianity. The very notion that muslims bare any comparison with true Christians is absurd.

Islam is a false religion based on law-worship. The law is found in the Koran. The Koran preaches a very punitive law towards non-muslims. This is completely different from the bible where the apostle merely says that "God will judge those on the outside."

It is therefore permissible to regard all followers of the Koran as potential terrorists.

 

[hdssh]

The very notion that muslims bare any comparison with true Christians is absurd.

We're all sinners in need of grace --- that's one point of comparison.
I might suggest that we're all vulnerable to following slippery slopes that lead to violence.

 

[outlawState]

We're all sinners in need of grace --- that's one point of comparison.
I might suggest that we're all vulnerable to following slippery slopes that lead to violence.

I don't think being "all sinners" is a valid point of comparison. He who is in Christ has passed from death to life, he is a new creation. The old has passed, the new has come. The Christian is a spirit filled entity. The muslim seeks justification through law.

OTOH being in the flesh as in being all human and prone to temptation is a common area, but whereas the bible discourages violence, the Koran promotes it. By condoning the Koran you're making it known where your sympathies lie.

The notion that muslims ought not to be discriminated against because Islam is a valid religion is insensate to truth. Obama was a de facto muslim, but now its time to start making the distinctions that should have been made a long time ago.

 

[hdssh]

He who is in Christ has passed from death to life, he is a new creation. The old has passed, the new has come.

Ah, the now and the not yet ... How I wish the new had already fully come. Sadly I slip and fall on a daily basis. Thank God for his Grace.

Obama was a de facto muslim

Wow ... am afraid I don't have your confidence of judgment (or share your conclusion).

 

[outlawState]

Ah, the now and the not yet ... How I wish the new had already fully come. Sadly I slip and fall on a daily basis. Thank God for his Grace.

Well if the apostles can make the distinction between the new creation and the old man under sin, then why can't you? We're not talking about perfection but about knowing God's will.

Wow ... am afraid I don't have your confidence of judgment (or share your conclusion).

I am sorry that you imagine that a Christian ruler would allow his country to be populated by unregenerated muslims. I feel that you don't have a lot of confidence in the benefit of Christ over the nonsense of Islam.