Don't be purposely obtuse friend, you framed your statement in a way that would make the Quran as some sort of anomaly in it's wickedness when it follows the exact same themes that all Abrahamic texts share.
I wasn't arguing about it's interpretation because your statement was about the Quran, not it's adherent.
Did I frame my statement or did you frame my statement?
Of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the least compatible with Western society, followed by the Old Testament and then the New. There are far more Jews and Christians who have deluded themselves by twisting the words of their religion into a moderate position. There are far more Muslims who take a strict interpretation of their religion. These people are not compatible with progressive Western society and these people are not just groups like ISIS. There are probably hundreds of millions of people.
When did that become a requirement?
Just like above - did I say it was requirement or did you make that up for me based from my statement?
But one would think it would make more sense to understand the religion of the people you advocate coming here.
Obviously most Muslims are not religious literalists, otherwise Islamic terrorism here would have been a problem long, long ago, with a much higher frequency of attacks.
Nobody is claiming there isn't a problem or "embracing" radical Islam.... you are talking out of your ass as usual.
Perhaps it should be a requirement because it's you talking out of your ass by equating religious literalism only with radical Islamic terrorism. The Quran is supposed to be the unaltered word of God. Naturally, most of its adherents are literalists. Islamic literalism not only leads to terrorism, but also severe oppression of women, which comically, is why people are dumping Trump, while advocating for Islamic refugees.
Is Sharia Law, which many Muslims, even in the US, support, compatible with Western society?
