Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Dachshund
Posts: 24
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » November 16th, 2017, 5:35 pm

I recently posted a topic in the "Philosophy of Politics" forum regarding Donald Trump and the question of Muslim immigration, though upon reflection, I feel that the issues involved are interesting enough to warrant being put up for debate again here in the "General Philosophy" section of the forum.

In his 2016 election campaign Trump promised that he would, as President, order a "total and complete" shutdown on Muslim immigration which would remain in place until the US authorities "can figure out what's going on". I think this was a very wise and very timely policy pledge on Trump's part, unfortunately however his efforts to implement it when he was elected President in 2017 quickly ran into legal difficulties and - to cut a long story short - the American authorities never did, in my opinion, have a proper opportunity to critically appraise the situation and "figure out what's going on".

It seems to me that when a little bit of time is put aside is analyse the question logically, there is only one conclusion we can arrive at, and this is that any person who identifies as a practising Muslim should be not be permitted to migrate to the United States nor , indeed, to any other of the world's current advanced, industrialised Western societies (such the United Kingdom, Canada , Australia, etc.)

At the moment, most of the politicians and the public in these Western nations are still blithely unaware of the tremendous danger that Muslim immigration currently poses to their societies and the reason why their governments should act to impose a blanket ban on any further Muslim intake as soon as is practically possible in their own best interests.

The basic reason is simply because there is, in fact, no such thing as a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. All persons who identify as practising Muslims should be understood as being, in a very real sense, violent extremists, and I would be happy to explain why this for those who are interested, or, debate it with anyone who disagrees.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5528
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » November 16th, 2017, 6:04 pm

For every one American killed by an act of terror in the United States or abroad in 2014, more than 1,049 died because of guns.
Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2014, 440,095 people died by firearms on US soil. (2014 is the most recent year for which the CDC has data for deaths by firearms.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.

According to the US State Department, the number of US citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2014 was 369.
In addition, we compiled all terrorism incidents inside the United States and found that between 2001 and 2014, there were 3,043 people killed in domestic acts of terrorism.* This brings the total to 3,412.
edition.cnn.com/2016/10/03/us/terrorism ... index.html

Why the urgency with Muslims? Regulating guns would save ten times more lives, yet there is no urgency. There is not even the slightest interest in high places. In context, it is impossible to take any American worries about safety and Muslim migration seriously. Their concern is obviously not about safety because Americans have made clear that American lives do not necessarily matter to them (hence there is much more resistance to welfare and universal healthcare in the US than in other western countries - "lettem die if they don't work for it!").

So this is entirely about culture and tribalism but presented in terms of national security to make the pitch more palatable.

Spectrum
Posts: 4415
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » November 16th, 2017, 11:44 pm

Dachshund wrote: ....
The basic reason is simply because there is, in fact, no such thing as a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. All persons who identify as practising Muslims should be understood as being, in a very real sense, violent extremists, and I would be happy to explain why this for those who are interested, or, debate it with anyone who disagrees.
My present focus is on Islam and Why Islam is SO Evil?

However I need to correct you on the above.

We should not blame Muslims per se at all, the focus should be on the ideology.
Some percentile of humans are unfortunately born with the tendency for evil, and in the case of Islam, it is its evil laden elements that feed and inspire these unfortunate souls to commit evils, terror and violence.

My thesis is this;
  • 1. DNA wise, all humans has the potential to commit evil.
    2. 20% [justified estimate] of all humans [thus Muslims] are born with an active tendency to commit evil - the evil prone people.
    3. The Quran (core of Islam) and its ethos has very malignant evil elements that inspire the 20% of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evils, terrors and violence.
Note the 20% of Muslims is a very conservative estimate as in many polls the % of Muslims who are willing to support the evil acts of evil prone Muslims can rise up to 80%.

In Donald Trump's case, he was only proposing Muslims from certain countries be banned for a certain period till they know 'what the hell is going on.'

I don't think the authorities and anyone at present really know and will understand fully what is going on as presented in my thesis which is the real root causes of all Islamic-based evils.

See my signature below, I understand religion is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present, but note, the cons of religions are outweighing the pros as from now and as we progress into the future.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =4&t=15195
Based on my thesis, I would recommend the West [and all Nations with Muslim minority] must banned Muslims in general (with the strictest exception) because inherent within Islam there is a very malignant potential.

Humanity must strive to wean off [voluntarily basis] all religions especially Islam as a priority.

-- Updated Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:14 pm to add the following --
[b]Greta[/b] wrote:Why the urgency with Muslims? Regulating guns would save ten times more lives, yet there is no urgency. There is not even the slightest interest in high places. In context, it is impossible to take any American worries about safety and Muslim migration seriously. Their concern is obviously not about safety because Americans have made clear that American lives do not necessarily matter to them (hence there is much more resistance to welfare and universal healthcare in the US than in other western countries - "lettem die if they don't work for it!").

So this is entirely about culture and tribalism but presented in terms of national security to make the pitch more palatable.
Humanity and all Nations must addressed all problems of evil appropriately. The degree of urgency, attention and resources directed at the various problems of evil must be based on its future potential of evilness.
Whilst the percentage of Muslims in US is small, the potential of the evil from Islam is very significant.
Note the correlation of violence and other Islamic-based evil with numbers of Muslims in Europe and elsewhere.

I am struggling with weeds in the garden at present.
If you know about weeds, you will understand, even one single seed or a bit of tuber/rhizome has the potential to infest the whole garden. This is why gardeners must focus and get rid of the weed together with its roots/rhizome/tuber.

The problem of Islam where World is its 'garden' is like a problem of weeds for a gardener.

If a country do not give attention to Islam and ignore the presence of Muslims [the unfortunate souls], the potential for terrible violence will be very great.
The problem of gun [must be addressed] is usually confined to the psychology of individual[s] but the root basis of Islamic-based evil is driven by an ideology which can spread like wild fire.
The mere drawing of cartoons can immediately spark a wild rampage throughout the world with evil prone Muslims killing non-believers.
Even when the Las Vegas Shooter did kill many, it is not likely [then or in future] to inspire millions of others to do the same because it is not based on an ideology driven by psychological desperations.

Islam [in a big part] is inherently very malignant and evil which feed the active inherent evil tendency of SOME [300 million!! :shock: of 1.5 b] of its believers. The central theme of Islam driven by desperate existential crisis and psychology is to dominate non-Muslims and they will not assimilate [otherwise they will go to hell] with non-Muslims.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Syamsu
Posts: 2517
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Syamsu » November 18th, 2017, 3:56 pm

The greater potential for evil is still materialism, with offshoots like communism and nazism.

The reason people are much peaceful in the West is because of freedom of opinion established in law. So really the issue is Islam and freedom of opinion.

Now we see that people in the West are generally vile, and insulting, not just towards Islam, but also towards Christianity, and anything else.

And that is where Islam has problems with accepting freedom of opinion.

So the solution would be to have freedom of opinion, without people becoming generally vile and insulting in that freedom.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5528
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » November 18th, 2017, 6:30 pm

Syamsu wrote:Now we see that people in the West are generally vile, and insulting, not just towards Islam, but also towards Christianity, and anything else.
Simple racism and a character assassination of billions of people with one sentence. Basically tit for tat for the OP.

So, if we tally up everyone's damning assessment of each other we are left with seven billion utter @rseholes in dsiagreement as to who is the worst.

In truth, most humans are decent and just want to lead a peaceful life. So there are multitudes of good people in the evil west, amongst the evil Muslims and middle easterners, the evil theists and evil atheists, evil Asians, Africans, Americans. Evil whites, blacks, browns, yellows. The evil purebreed and evil half bloods.

Each group mostly consists of decent people, including some who are wonderful and admirable. Nonetheless, in a crowded world, nothing will be more valuable than habitable space, and giving away a nation's space to millions of outsiders at this wildly unsustainable rate simply harms the insiders.

As for Muslims, I think it would be helpful to take in the ones who are trying to escape it - those in danger for being gay, female, free thinkers, etc - those who are seeking more freedom and less control, as discussed above.

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » November 18th, 2017, 7:55 pm

Dachshund:
The basic reason is simply because there is, in fact, no such thing as a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. All persons who identify as practicing Muslims should be understood as being, in a very real sense, violent extremists, and I would be happy to explain why this for those who are interested, or, debate it with anyone who disagrees.
I have one simple request for you: If you can, go out and talk to some of the Muslim people who live and work near you: The people who work in the ambulance service, in restaurants, as computer programmers, as pastry chefs, as traffic wardens, as police officers, as mayors, as politicians, as vetinary surgeons, as comedians, as stay-at-home parents, as teachers, as doctors etc. etc. Try as far as possible to get a sense of what individual people are like - their concerns and interests. Not the supposed collective characteristics of groups.

The only way in which the ludicrous caricature that I've quoted from you above can persist is by lack of human-to-human contact. Never mind what you've read. Never mind all the statistics that Spectrum could probably help you to arm yourself with, demonstrating precisely how many evil-laden verses there are in the Koran. Meet people. Individual people. Look them in their eyes. Meet their kids. Talk to them. Share a joke with them. And then tell them that you've decided, based on one thing you know about them (that they are Muslim) that they are a violent extremist.

You'll find that, just like any other group of people, they're not saints and they're not devils. They're human beings. Only then will it dawn on you how insane it is to say that every single member of a particular group (whether it's Muslims, Jews, Hutus, Tutsis, Catholics, Protestants or whatever) is a "violent extremist".

You will note that even Spectrum thinks you have gone too far here. If you read some of Spectrum's posts to get a sense of his central theme then you will see why that's a big deal.

I think history teaches that the thing which causes your kind of attitude to grow more than anything else is simply lack of personal contact.

-- Updated Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:26 am to add the following --

Spectrum:
In Donald Trump's case, he was only proposing Muslims from certain countries be banned for a certain period till they know 'what the hell is going on.'
No he wasn't. On the campaign trail he was proposing a complete ban on all Muslims. No mention of certain countries. The actual attempted ban that emerged once he was elected president was on all the citizens of some countries that have majority Muslim populations. Countries that realpolitik allowed. Not a ban on Muslims. So the ironic thing was that the actual attempted ban was not in itself a ban on people based on their religious affiliation. But it was still overturned by a judge because of that stated intention on the campaign trail. By making that statement on the campaign trail Trump demonstrated his desire to violate the US constitution.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

Spectrum
Posts: 4415
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » November 18th, 2017, 10:50 pm

Syamsu wrote:The greater potential for evil is still materialism, with offshoots like communism and nazism.

The reason people are much peaceful in the West is because of freedom of opinion established in law. So really the issue is Islam and freedom of opinion.
Now we see that people in the West are generally vile, and insulting, not just towards Islam, but also towards Christianity, and anything else.
And that is where Islam has problems with accepting freedom of opinion.
So the solution would be to have freedom of opinion, without people becoming generally vile and insulting in that freedom.
Have you read the Quran and understood it fully? If yes, how many times? From what you have posted it would appear you are ignorant of the objectives and ethos of Islam.

The significant difference between "Islam" and "materialism" is "materialism" is not an ideology that condone the killing of non-believers in God's name.

Nazism is dead, but even then it is only a racist ideology that is focused on the condemnation of the Jews.
Note Islam with the Quran and its related holy books is worst than the Mein Kempf.
Indeed, as a measurement of that hatred, 10.6% of the Koran written in Medina is about Jew hatred. Using the concept of the German Holocaust as the reference, it should be noted that 6.8% of Mein Kampf is about Jew hatred. Conclusion: the Koran written in Medina is more filled with Jew hatred than Mein Kampf.
https://www.politicalislam.com/the-good ... st-denial/
The central ethos and objective of Islam [as an ideology] is to dominate the world and to achieve that Islam sanction the killing and spreading of terrors on non-believers where necessary. Islam promised Muslims eternal life & paradise. For that, evil Muslims will have no hesitation to nuke and exterminate the human race since it is a win-win for them as either way they are sure of ending up in paradise.

Your point 'the greater potential for evil is ...' is morally wrong, as if we can close one eye to the evils of Islam.
Morally all evils regardless of how negative it is, must be dealt with.
The evils of Islam is one of the most critical evils at present and thus must be given special attention.

-- Updated Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:18 pm to add the following --
[b]Steve3007[/b] wrote:No he wasn't. On the campaign trail he was proposing a complete ban on all Muslims. No mention of certain countries. The actual attempted ban that emerged once he was elected president was on all the citizens of some countries that have majority Muslim populations. Countries that realpolitik allowed. Not a ban on Muslims. So the ironic thing was that the actual attempted ban was not in itself a ban on people based on their religious affiliation. But it was still overturned by a judge because of that stated intention on the campaign trail. By making that statement on the campaign trail Trump demonstrated his desire to violate the US constitution.
I do not agree with Trump on most things but agree with his attitude [knowing or ignorantly] towards Islam via Muslims. It is not because of "Trump" I will agree with any one who resists Islam based on the evidence evils, terrors and violence committed by SOME unfortunate evil prone Muslims.
Trump got it wrong by focusing his attention on Muslims per se as he did not get the right advice to direct his attention on Islam the ideology.
Critically the White House [and the Humanity] must get to the facts why Islam is intrinsically evil [in a major part].

My thesis is;
  • 1. All humans has the potential for evil and 20% [thus Muslims] has an active evil tendency.
    2. The Quran [core of Islam] has tons of evil laden verses.
The fact here is we have a problem identifying who are the 20% of the Muslims who has an active evil tendency to be influenced by the evil laden elements.
Therefore it is a rational move [albeit hasty] to ban all Muslims on a temporary basis from entering the USA till it is understood what the hell is going on.
  • Similarly I am thinking of digging up to 1 feet of soil in my garden and throw it away and replace it with burnt soil [99% certain no seeds of any weed].
But my doubt is the US authorities are not going to understand and get to the root causes of the evils committed by Muslims [lest they employ me to advise on that :D ]
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 1658
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Burning ghost » November 19th, 2017, 2:47 am

Syamsu -
So the solution would be to have freedom of opinion, without people becoming generally vile and insulting in that freedom.
That is not a "solution" it is an aim. My idea of freedom is one in which people insult and offend, and are insulted and offended, without an intent to play the offender or the victim.

I can dream :)
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 4223
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » November 19th, 2017, 7:28 am

Banning all Muslims "until we figure out what the hell is going on" is, like many of Trump's remarks, meaningless gibberish whose only purpose is to throw red meat to his supporters. How on Earth could any sensible political leader instigate a policy of "finding out what the hell is going on" and expect his/her underlings to be able to action that policy?

It's a bit like when the various candidates for the Republican ticket were all trying to out do each other with their tough talk about what they were going to do about Daesch. There were tough remarks like "they're going to find out that sand can glow." Just meaningless campaign gibberish.

It's already fairly clear why some people decide to do these kinds of things and there isn't going to be some sudden "finding out" moment in which everybody says "Ah! I see! so that's what's going on!". So blanket bans on entire populations until this mythical event happens are absurd.

-- Updated Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:55 pm to add the following --

Greta:
Why the urgency with Muslims? Regulating guns would save ten times more lives, yet there is no urgency. There is not even the slightest interest in high places. In context, it is impossible to take any American worries about safety and Muslim migration seriously. Their concern is obviously not about safety because Americans have made clear that American lives do not necessarily matter to them (hence there is much more resistance to welfare and universal healthcare in the US than in other western countries - "lettem die if they don't work for it!").

So this is entirely about culture and tribalism but presented in terms of national security to make the pitch more palatable.
Yes, as I said on Dachshund's other topic, this is the evidence that it's all just political BS. A route to power for Trump via his chosen host. If it was a rational attempt to reduce the number of people being murdered, regardless of how they are murdered or who murders them, then there would be higher priorities. But personally I think that if the US population as a whole don't wish to regulate domestic gun ownership and believe that the regular mass shootings are a price worth paying for freedom, that's their business. I accept it as a cultural difference. It takes all sorts. I can see why they think that way, given the history. The fight for freedom from a monarch and the wild frontier and all that.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 120
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Albert Tatlock » November 19th, 2017, 4:46 pm

Steve3007 wrote: everybody says "Ah! I see! so that's what's going on!".
I fear it is very unlikely we will hear those words while ever Donald is in charge. No one has known what's going on since the day he walked into the White House, including him.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5528
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » November 19th, 2017, 6:41 pm

Steve3007 wrote:If it was a rational attempt to reduce the number of people being murdered, regardless of how they are murdered or who murders them, then there would be higher priorities. But personally I think that if the US population as a whole don't wish to regulate domestic gun ownership and believe that the regular mass shootings are a price worth paying for freedom, that's their business. I accept it as a cultural difference. It takes all sorts. I can see why they think that way, given the history. The fight for freedom from a monarch and the wild frontier and all that.
I agree with this, although I think you'll find there are many Americans hoping for gun regulation.
Sixty-four percent of voters support stricter gun laws, the poll shows, including 41 percent who strongly support them. Less than 3-in-10 voters, 29 percent, oppose stricter gun laws, including 16 percent in strong opposition.
politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-contr ... lls-243647

Once again a fault line in democracy is exposed, where the interests powerful lobby groups funded by multinational companies override the interests of the majority. In Australia, while 70% of people support euthanasia, just one state here is working to get such a law through, and the Fed and others aren't interested. Why? Because most politicians are Christians, their political longevity supported for a century now by the old boys' Christian school network.

And this why there is such a strong push in the polity to move against Muslims - ancient Abrahamic hostilities. Safety is a concern but, as above, it's also an excuse for Christians to lash out against their competition. I am glad that there's a lot of Chinese and Indian immigration (even if overall immigration levels are far too high ATM), despite the fact that each of those groups tends to be socially backward and regressive.

IMO it's positive that regressive types are divided - Chinese v Christians v Muslims v Hindus. I doubt that anything short of an alien invasion would bring them together, aside from Chinese gravitating towards Christianity because its brand of misogyny and homophobia is more resonant with their own than those of other faiths.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1645
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Atreyu » November 19th, 2017, 6:46 pm

Dachshund wrote:The basic reason is simply because there is, in fact, no such thing as a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. All persons who identify as practising Muslims should be understood as being, in a very real sense, violent extremists, and I would be happy to explain why this for those who are interested, or, debate it with anyone who disagrees.
I agree with an absolute ban on Muslims, but my reasoning is far different than yours and I utterly reject your above premise as racist and ignorant. Many Muslims are moderate and peace loving, and, in fact, that is probably the norm. Many would even prefer not living under Sharia law, perhaps even a majority.

My reason for banning them is simply that it's too difficult for them to assimilate en mass, and that eventually, if the current trend continues, their presence will ultimately lead to the destruction of all Western civilization and the principles on which it was founded.

In other words, multiculturalism does not work at all, and, in fact, is simply a fancy word for decay....

Spectrum
Posts: 4415
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » November 19th, 2017, 11:28 pm

Steve3007 wrote:Banning all Muslims "until we figure out what the hell is going on" is, like many of Trump's remarks, meaningless gibberish whose only purpose is to throw red meat to his supporters. How on Earth could any sensible political leader instigate a policy of "finding out what the hell is going on" and expect his/her underlings to be able to action that policy?

It's a bit like when the various candidates for the Republican ticket were all trying to out do each other with their tough talk about what they were going to do about Daesch. There were tough remarks like "they're going to find out that sand can glow." Just meaningless campaign gibberish.

It's already fairly clear why some people decide to do these kinds of things and there isn't going to be some sudden "finding out" moment in which everybody says "Ah! I see! so that's what's going on!". So blanket bans on entire populations until this mythical event happens are absurd.
When there is an epidemic, the solution is to put a stop of all possible related activities so that the authorities can trace the root causes and dealt with the problem from the root level.

In the case of the real Islamic-based evil around the World [the worst kind of epidemic] the suggestion of
'Banning all* Muslims "until we figure out what the hell is going on" ' is a very logical solution in view of the real evils and violence emerging from the Muslim community.
* with exceptions in the strictest sense.

Effectively there is a need for a shift of attention on the above statement from "ALL Muslims" to focus on the ideology.

What is critical with the above proposal is the authority must trace the root causes which I had proposed, i.e.
  • 1. the potential and active evil tendencies in a percentile of humans -incl. Muslims.

    2. the tons of evil laden verses in the Quran and related texts.

    3. Others??
At present the authorities are totally blind to the above.
Most authorities [Obama, Cameron, Blair, the Pope, Dalai Lama, etc] will insist 'Islam is a religion of Peace' without reading the Quran and understanding the psycho-historical elements of Islam thoroughly. Such an attitude provide the extremists moral support and umbrella to hide under to stealthily spread their terror, evils and violence.

There are no proper research into the "potential and active evil tendencies in a percentile of humans (including Muslims) and its interactions and inspiration from the evil laden verses of the Quran.

"until we figure out what the hell is going on"
The authorities need to figure out and understand the main root causes are the above as I had listed.
Once they have recognized and acknowledged the above root cause and starts to find solutions, then they can relax the ruling with strict vetting.

However, if the authorities are unable to trace the root causes, then "to ban 'all' Muslims until we figure out what the hell is going on" is not going to be effective. Even when it miss, nevertheless this call is in the right direction of the bull-eyes in identifying the root cause instead of those stupid 'political correct' statements.

Seemingly it [Trump's call] has some effect, Saudi Arabia is at present taking significant steps to move away from the extremist version of Islam [Wahabism] to a more moderate form of Islam. This is something but not enough. Humanity must stress on the fact, there is something inherent evil from Islam [in a major part] itself.

-- Updated Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:36 pm to add the following --
[b]Atreyu[/b] wrote:My reason for banning them is simply that it's too difficult for them to assimilate en mass, and that eventually, if the current trend continues, their presence will ultimately lead to the destruction of all Western civilization and the principles on which it was founded.

In other words, multiculturalism does not work at all, and, in fact, is simply a fancy word for decay....
Root cause analysis is one critical solution to Problem Solving.
So why and what are the root cause, they have problem assimilating.

If you do not trace the root causes and deal with them effectively, it would appear the ban would be a permanent one which is not beneficial in the long run.

I did not mention in the above, one of the proximate cause is theism.
These extremists believe a real God exists who promise them salvation and eternal life in paradise and if they commit 'evils' [to them is Good] and violence on non-Muslims [as a divine duty] they will get greater assurance and rewards from God as promised.
When it is proven 'God is an Impossibility' and illusory then the extremists will not have any legs to stand on to commit their evils, terrors and violence.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5528
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » November 19th, 2017, 11:56 pm

To be fair, I remember problems with Italians and Greeks assimilating in the 60s. In face there was a term - "Greek fires" - to describe a very common insurance scam. There were "sharpie" (knife) gangs etc. Catholic Lebanese and the Vietnamese refugees also formed gangs. Now we have Muslim gangs.

However, Muslims are as varied as anyone else. I remember having a drink with a Muslim man about 20 years ago and I asked him why he drank. His reply struck me as pretty authentic Aussie to me - "I don't care about that stuff," he said with a laugh. Muslims have their lefties and "bleeding hearts" too and these people would be safe migrants.

Imagine if all westerners were judged by the actions of evangelical conservatives - how accurate would that be? Of course, in Islamic propaganda all westerners are presented as being akin to insane conservative evangelicals just as in American propaganda, all Muslims are presented as being sympathetic to their own odious extremists. Lies, lies, lies. SNAFU.

I expect the migration flows of Muslims to western nations to slow and stop (in some instances) anyway. Islam and Christianity are at war*. It's obviously risky to take in migrants who could be "enemy sympathisers". This means extra screening, thus extra expense, and from there migrants from other cultures will increasingly appear a more efficient and effective option. I think that Islamic gays, rebellious women, and other thinkers and targets of repressive regimes would be wise to migrate to a more open culture while they have the chance.

* This latest Abrahamic religious war has killed, and will kill, numerous middle eastern and western secularists. The non religious are considered to be lesser, sometimes sub-human, by influential theists and thus any collateral damage to secular people is fine, and even desirable, to them.

Spectrum
Posts: 4415
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » November 20th, 2017, 12:26 am

Greta wrote:To be fair, I remember problems with Italians and Greeks assimilating in the 60s. In face there was a term - "Greek fires" - to describe a very common insurance scam. There were "sharpie" (knife) gangs etc. Catholic Lebanese and the Vietnamese refugees also formed gangs. Now we have Muslim gangs.

However, Muslims are as varied as anyone else. ..
Most newcomers will assimilate in time. But there is is a big difference because Islam is an ideology based on the immutable theistic belief, if you assimilate you will go to hell! This is a very serious and critical threat that will keep most Muslims from assimilating with non-Muslims [kuffar -derogatorily].

You need to read the Quran thoroughly to understand this non-assimilating expectation from Allah.

There are Muslims who drink and mixed well with non-Muslims. Generally these are Muslims who are ignorant of the central ethos of Islam based on the Quran. Those who interact and are friendly with non-Muslims are doing so as being-more-human and not as good Muslims per-se.
  • 3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends biṭānatan بِطَانَةً] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper [ʿanittum عَنِتُّمْ ] you [Muslims].
    Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater.
    We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.
There are many other verses that forbid Muslims from being general friends or associates [awliyaa] with non-Muslim.

The point is to be a good Muslim, one cannot compromise the command of Allah, i.e. in this case to befriend non-Muslims.

As an exception, Allah allow in a no-choice situation for a Muslim to lie and pretend [Taqiyya] to be friends with non-Muslims. Thus when one meet a 'friendly' Muslim one cannot be sure.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply