Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, I can't help noticing that you are more red hot keen about the Muslim issue than just about anyone else about any topic on any philosophy forum I have encountered.

Why??? Why just keep repeating these same assertions over and over, day after day? Over and over ... evil ideology ... immanent danger etc. Over and over and over ...........

That is because the Islam issue is a red hot topic in the News almost everyday at present and perhaps had always been since 1,400 years ago.
My latest project is the full time research into Islam so it is only natural my focus is on Islam.
Note I am focused on Islam but overall there are only a few threads relating to Islam so my notable posts re Islam are mere drops in the ocean within this forum.
Despite the few posts they draw attention because the subject of Islam is something terrified within the psyche of the majority.

The topics re Islam trigger terrified fears in the hearts of the majority because Islam has succeeded in its plan [commanded by Allah in the Quran] to strike terrors in the hearts of the majority and non-Muslims to keep them subdued.
This is the reason why critiques of Islam are condemned, imprisoned or killed because their critiques trigger subliminal terrific fears within the psyche of those who come across such critiques.

It is very unfortunate, despite the glaring evidence, the majority are so blind [has to be ostriches or else fears and pains] to the danger of Islam as an evil and malignant ideology. This ignorance is not confined to the West but the whole world is not reading the Quran itself thoroughly to see that the evilness therein is so blatant.

But note I am into serious philosophy if any one is game for it but this is so rare in this forum.
Heidegger: All Prior Western Views of Being Are Wrong!
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15641
Heidegger do provide a good basis [re Angst] why the majority are so cowered with subliminal terrors as a response to the strategic terror plans of Islam as commanded by Allah.

Besides my present focus on Islam, I like to think the topics I have participated [with regular links] are very wide but most do not notice this.

[Sy Borg]

If it's in the news every day, why is it necessary for you to keep repeating the same messages? Don't you get bored, saying those same things over again?

[Belindi]

Spectrum, Islam is unlike ebola in that Islam is normally adapted by Muslims to comply with the host country's laws whereas ebola is always a menace. Information and ideas are so widely disseminated in modern times that it's analogous to natural immunity against disease.

True, politicised Islam menaces free societies. However theocratic autocracy of any religious colour is a menace even to its own citizens.

[LuckyR]

Loose compared to what? Since the 1970s the US has taken in over 3 million refugees and there has not been a single fatal terrorist attack from a refugee in the US since. Oh and by the way, of the three fatalities by refugee terrorists on US soil in the 70s, they carried out by Cubans, a traditionally Catholic nation.

Topic refer to immigration of Muslims not specifically refugees.
Whatever the evil terrorist or any other attacks they must be condemned but this OP is about Muslims.

Note the following terrorist attacks by Muslim;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ... _extremism

If there are no restraints by the current government, there will be more terrorist attacks by Muslims accepted into the United States because for a percentile they deem it as their divine duty to kill non-Muslims any time they feel more zealous to please God.

Note these killers were not personally victims of innocent Americans but the innocent were killed because they were non-Muslims, i.e. deemed as insulting Islam the superior religion.

• February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing, (New York City): Islamist terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.
  
  1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting a van filled with schoolboys targeted by Muslim extremist.
  
  July 28, 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, (Seattle, WA): An "angry" Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
  
  May 2009 Bronx terrorism plot Islamist extremists plan to bomb synagogue
  
  June 1, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, (Little Rock, AR): A Man shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center explicitly in the name of Allah.
  
  November 5, 2009 Fort Hood shooting, Ft. Hood, Texas: A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.
  
  September 11, 2011 Waltham triple murder, (Waltham, MA): Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Islamist terrorists.
  
  April 15, 2013 - Boston Marathon bombing (Boston, MA): Foreign-born Muslims detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.
  
  September 25, 2014 - Vaughan Foods beheading incident, (Moore, OK): A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.
  
  July 16, 2015 Chattanooga shootings, Chattanooga, Tennessee: A Muslim commits a shooting spree at a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center, leaving five soldiers dead at the latter location.
  
  November 4, 2015 - University of California, Merced stabbing attack by Islamist extremist
  
  December 2, 2015 San Bernardino attack, San Bernardino, California: A couple opens fire at a Christmas party, leaving fourteen dead.
  
  February 11, 2016 - Ohio restaurant machete attack by Islamist extremist
  
  June 12, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Orlando, Florida: Omar Mateen shoots and kills 49 people and injures 58 more at a gay bar, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history at the time.
  
  November 28, 2016 - Ohio State University attack, Columbas, Ohio: A Somalian student, Abdul Artan, who came to the U.S. as a refugee, intentionally rammed a car into pedestrians on a busy campus sidewalk on Monday morning and then began slashing passers-by with a butcher knife, the authorities said, injuring 11 students and faculty and staff members.
  
  October 31, 2017 - 2017 New York City truck attack, New York City: 29-year-old Sayfullo Habibullaevich Saipov rented a Home Depot pickup truck and intentionally drove it through a bicycle path. He crashed into a school bus and then exited the vehicle wielding look-a-like weapons. He was shot by NYPD. 8 people were killed and 12 were injured.

If your concern was really about: 1) public safety from terrorism and 2) immigration, as the OP states, you 1) would be equally outraged about right wing terrorism and 2) wouldn't include terrorist events perpetrated by Muslims who are not immigrants.

Take this stuff to a political forum.

[Spectrum]

If it's in the news every day, why is it necessary for you to keep repeating the same messages? Don't you get bored, saying those same things over again?

You seem to be shooting from the hips without much consideration to the critical factors.

Note if it is News it has to sell.
It can only sell if people are not bored and want to read about it.
Thus if if it in the the news every day, then it must be news that people want to read about and are not getting bored.

The two main drivers of news that people want to read and not getting bored are related to the following;

• 1. Sex
  2. Money
  3. Existential threats, near threats;
  4. & Others

My points re Islam and immigration is related to the 3 -Existential threats, near threats. This is the type of news that people do not get bored but want to be informed of so that they can take possible preventions and avoidance.

It is so evident the activities of SOME Muslims inspired by evil ideology [part] of Islam is so so evident and creeping into the Western society and almost everywhere in the world. This involve a threat to the well being and an existential threat to humanity.

It is because of the existential threat factor that the news media will keep reporting evils and violence by Islamists [& other sources] and people are not likely to get bored with reporting, discussing, critique and suggesting solutions to deal with such threats.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum, Islam is unlike ebola in that Islam is normally adapted by Muslims to comply with the host country's laws whereas ebola is always a menace. Information and ideas are so widely disseminated in modern times that it's analogous to natural immunity against disease.

True, politicised Islam menaces free societies. However theocratic autocracy of any religious colour is a menace even to its own citizens.

The ebola analogy is suitable to that context it was used.
Whenever there is a serious threat, the whole population with potential must be isolated. This is a learned experience from dealing and solving past incidents.
This is the same principle that must be applied to such a serious threat from Islam - that very malignant virus.

[Spectrum]

If your concern was really about: 1) public safety from terrorism and 2) immigration, as the OP states, you 1) would be equally outraged about right wing terrorism and 2) wouldn't include terrorist events perpetrated by Muslims who are not immigrants.

Take this stuff to a political forum.

That post of mine was to counter your misinformation re no Islamic terror in the US since 1970.

I have stated many times, my vision and mission is Perpetual World Peace and that ALL evils and violence must be addressed.
Since this OP is about Muslims [inevitably involved Islam] thus my points are related to Islam.

It is not wrong to raise [not by me] this thread in 'General Philosophy' but I agree it would be more appropriate to raise it within 'Spirituality & Religion' or the 'Political Section.'

[Belindi]

Spectrum, Islam is unlike ebola in that Islam is normally adapted by Muslims to comply with the host country's laws whereas ebola is always a menace. Information and ideas are so widely disseminated in modern times that it's analogous to natural immunity against disease.

True, politicised Islam menaces free societies. However theocratic autocracy of any religious colour is a menace even to its own citizens.

The ebola analogy is suitable to that context it was used.
Whenever there is a serious threat, the whole population with potential must be isolated. This is a learned experience from dealing and solving past incidents.
This is the same principle that must be applied to such a serious threat from Islam - that very malignant virus.

You have not rebutted my objection except by repetition of your original asssertion. I conclude that you can't do it.

[Spectrum]

The ebola analogy is suitable to that context it was used.
Whenever there is a serious threat, the whole population with potential must be isolated. This is a learned experience from dealing and solving past incidents.
This is the same principle that must be applied to such a serious threat from Islam - that very malignant virus.

You have not rebutted my objection except by repetition of your original asssertion. I conclude that you can't do it.

Note the following;

• 1. DNA wise ALL human beings has the potential to be evil prone.
  2. Appx 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
  3. Quran with its tons of evil elements and according to Allah is immutable thus cannot be changed.
  4. The 20% [potential pool of 300 millions re 2] are inspired by 3 to commit evil and violence.

From the above, it is true the 80% of moderates may compromised personally, adapt and side-step the duty bound evil elements in the Quran.
But the 20% [pool of potential evil prone Muslims] will be inspired by the evil elements in the Quran to commit evils acts on non-Muslims as a divine duty to Allah.

Note the ebola virus is NOT something that is immutable and has the potential to be eliminated.
Therefore as it is, the potential threat of Islam re 4 above are a very much worse menace than the ebola virus. Even AIDs which at one time a death sentence is now no more a threat to humanity.

On the other hand, the evil potential of Islam will always be there as longs as there is Islam and Muslims.
Islam has always carried out its evil throughout it 1400 history which is so evident.
It is very unfortunate people like you are so blinded to such evident truths. Point is, if you do not critique the evil of Islam, you are indirectly complicit to the evil acts of those 'SOME' evil prone Muslims who are inspired by the evil elements in the Quran.

[Belindi]

I'm not a Muslim. I can read the fighting bits and the peaceful bits of the Koran . Muslims are capable of liberal interpretation of the fighting verses. Indeed Allah's mercy overarches the whole of the Koran including the fighting verses.

Those Muslims who have learned only a pugilistic ideology and interpretation these people are indeed a threat to others and should be excluded.

Simply, Spectrum, you have the wrong statistics.

[Dachshund]

Belindi, if you were to remove all the violent/ belligerent verses from the Koran, you would end up with a very slim text about the size of Kahil Gibran's collected love poetry published in large print.

Dachshund

[Spectrum]

I'm not a Muslim. I can read the fighting bits and the peaceful bits of the Koran . Muslims are capable of liberal interpretation of the fighting verses. Indeed Allah's mercy overarches the whole of the Koran including the fighting verses.

Those Muslims who have learned only a pugilistic ideology and interpretation these people are indeed a threat to others and should be excluded.

Simply, Spectrum, you have the wrong statistics.

You are dreaming, re the bolded, where in the Quran [Allah's words] are the overall overarching verses to support your point, Allah is merciful to non-Muslims?

In the Quran, Allah is only merciful to only Muslims NEVER merciful to non-Muslims who are condemned, dehumanized to be killed wherever necessary and possible.

I have done my own research to support the fact, the Quran is inherently and malignantly evil. Though I don't have my supporting details in the web, note this;

In terms of Jews hatred, the Quran, Hadiths and Sira are worst than Main Kempf;
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistic ... _Text.html

Note the supporting data provided in the link above.
Just give me a clue how this could be wrong in any way?

Here is another;

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 37% of the text to Kafirs. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 51% of its content to the Kafir.
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistic ... Kafir.html

Those 51% of the content related to the Kafir [non-Muslims] are in the negative and derogatory terms.

Note in Buddhists and other holy texts, their main concern is the spiritual development of the believers.
Islam [Quran] on the other hand had 64% of its 6236 verses highlighting non-Muslims as a threat to Islam. This is crazy!!

I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly [to be fair to yourself and others] to ensure the intellectual credibility in your views [seemingly blind and wild].

[Belindi]

Spectrum wrote:

You are dreaming, re the bolded, where in the Quran [Allah's words] are the overall overarching verses to support your point, Allah is merciful to non-Muslims?

I understand that you are reading Koranic fighting talk as if it applies for all time and all history.I believe that some Muslims are also literalists.


Muhammad was a great leader of his time for whom politics, religious rituals, and social welfare were bound together in the proper religious life. The mercy of Allah is that Allah gave the Koran to Muhammad so dictating the right way to live and believe. Beyond the literal meaning is the intention of Allah to guide and direct. The manner by which mercy is expressed changes according to circumstances. What's wrong with literalists like yourself and also Muslim literalists is that you and they cannot understand that the theme of mercy extends over and above historical circumstances.

You write " where in the Quran". You would not have asked that question if you had understood that a theme underlies all the particular bits and pieces.

[Dachshund]

Those Muslims who have learned only a pugilistic IDEOLOGY and interpretation these people are indeed a threat to others and should be excluded.

I have highlighted your use of the word ideology, Belindi, because, I think that there is a pressing need right now for the West to investigate to what extent Islam is rightly categorised as a religion, as opposed to a (violent) totalitarian political ideology. I will use the example of the United States to explain the points I wish to make.

At present in the US, Islam is defined as a religion; this means that the First Amendment of the American Constitution prevents Congress from making any law that would prohibit Muslims in the United States from freely exercising their right to practice Islam.The First Amendment protects freedom of religion within certain bounds ( for instance, the individual liberty to practice a given religion must be balanced by a consideration for the welfare of society as a whole), but to date there is still no explicit Constitutional definition of what defines a religion for this purpose. While it is clear that the Founders intended to define religion in a Judeo- Christian context, American courts have, generally speaking, avoided trying to define religion so as not to pass judgement on the merits of a creed; the reason is that doing so could constitute "establishment" of what religion is and is not, which might in itself be a breech of the Constitution. Therefore, to date, American courts have been deliberately vague regarding the issue of what constitutes a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment

In my opinion, it is high time that West nations like United States considered conducting formal enquiries tasked with determining whether or not is it right that Islam continues to be classified and described as a religion, let alone an "Abrahamic" religion or one of the "the world's great religions" as has been presented, or, whether it is better understood as being a political ideology. What I have in mind is the convening what we in Australia ( likewise the UK and Canada) call a" Royal Commission" of enquiry into the issue, or what is termed a "Presidential Commission" in the United States . Basically, a "Royal Commission" is a major, ad-hoc, formal public enquiry whose task is to look into an issue of great importance and typically controversy. A "Royal Commission" has considerable powers, generally greater than those of a judge; its work involves intensive research into the issue it has been given to deal with along with public consultations and consultations with experts both within and outside government. A "Royal Commission's" warrant may grant tremendous investigatory powers such as summoning witnesses under oath, the offering of indemnities, seizing of documents and other evidence (including classified information), holding hearings in camera if necessary and so on. The results of a "Royal Commissions" are published in reports ( often massive) of findings containing policy recommendations; these reports are typically very influential and result in the government enacting some or all of the Commission's recommendations into law.

So what, you may ask, is there to justify holding a "Royal Commission" or a "Presidential Commission" into the question of whether or not Islam should continue be defined as a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment to the American Constitution and its legal equivalents in the Constitutions of other Western nations like the UK and Australia? In my opinion there is quite a lot...

To start with, when it is analysed philosophically, Islam reveals itself to be much closer to ideologies like material determinism, nihilism and even Social Darwinism than it is to either Christianity or Judaism. It seems to me that Islam lies on the other side of nihilism from Christianity and the other major religions and its morality is inverted - matter is elevated over value, and it that sense it could be seen as an anti-religion.

With respect to the First Amendment of the American Constitution (and parallel legislation in other contemporary Western societies like: Australia, England, Canada, New Zealand etc) it is essential to emphasise that the meaning of the term "religion" is fundamentally drawn from the Western Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Religion, as we in the West have known it, has been good for society. It has nurtured pro-social, pro-life morality, strengthened the time-honoured traditional patriarchal family unit through the Christian institution of marriage, fostered the civic virtue in encouraging an ethic of public service and community spirit; promoted social harmony and cohesion. Islam, on the other hand, is intrinsically and stridently self-segregating, fosters ideas of Muslim supremacy and thereby sows the seeds of social discord and fragmentation. Even its tradition of charitable giving is solely for the benefit of fellow Muslims and it utterly destroys the traditional family unit through its adoption of polygamy.

In addition, Islam is the only religion that requires territorial sovereignty - its laws are laws of the land rather than the laws of the heart that we are accustomed to finding in religion. In the Western cultural tradition, legality and morality are two separate things. In Islam, they are one and the same. And as Muslims continue to press for their laws to become laws of the land, especially by suppressing criticism of Islam, the clash between the two system of thought will intensify.

There is, Belindi, a dangerous current of modern thought (that circulates in the minds of persons like yourself) which mistakenly seeks to elevate a laudable PERSONAL virtue - that of tolerance - OVER THE GREATER PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE. But I ask you Belindi ...

* Is it JUST to tolerate polygamy in the name of religious freedom ?

* Is it JUST to tolerate the unequal right to inheritance for women ?

* Is it JUST to tolerate forced marriage?

*Is it JUST to tolerate antisemitism?

*Is it JUST to tolerate the preaching of hatred towards non-Muslims?

* Is it JUST to tolerate the teaching that Muslims are superior human being to persons who are non- Muslims and that men are superior to women?

* Is is JUST to tolerate the mutilation of adolescent girls' genitalia?

* Is it JUST to tolerate a parallel legal system based on inequality?

* Is it just to persecute and condemn to death homosexual men ?

Well, IS IT, Belindi ??!!

There are, in short, things, my dear, that our society cannot tolerate and expect to survive. Justice must take its rightful place above tolerance !

Finally, if Islam could be reclassified - as, IMO, it ought be - as primarily a social and political ideology, the the Western world would have a very powerful tool with which to curb its spread and could then begin the process of containment in the same way that the West contained the global onslaught of communism in the 20th century, which in the end, seems to be the only realistic option before us with regard to Islam.

Regards


Dachshund

[Steve3007]

Is it JUST to tolerate the teaching that Muslims are superior human being to persons who are non- Muslims and that men are superior to women? ...

Well, IS IT, Belindi ??!!

Belindi, I'd advise you to consider the above list of questions, including the one I've quoted here, in the context of views like these:

His views on women:

women are more emotionally labile, fickle, unpredictable, untrustworthy, disloyal, disingenuous, inherently disposed to dissimulation, dissembling and chronic lying, cunning, manipulative and duplicitous; in short they are like naughty , mischievous children who need the firm supervision and guidance of man if they are not to generate, mischief, mayhem, trouble and grief.

Let me conclude with the following quotation from Nietzsche which, I think, nicely summarises the truth of the nature of women very nicely, and ,how any wise man should ideally endeavour to manage his relationship/s with them...

...a man who has depth, in his spirit as well as his desires, and also that depth of benevolence which is capable of hardness and severity and is easily confused with them, can think of woman only in an oriental way - he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property with lock and key, as something predestined for service and attaining her fulfillment in service...

His views on all people with dark skin:

Like chimpanzees, black sub-saharan Africans in the Congo, dark-skinned arabs in Iraq and black Papua New Guineans also naturally form patriarchal ( male dominated) family units dominated by the male husbands. These people are also somewhat like chimps in that evolutionary biologists, behavioural geneticists and scientist studying the history cognitive evolution in the higher primates have confirmed that they are most likely not as highly evolved in terms of their innate (biogenetic)cognitive capacities( i.e. trait intelligence/ g-factor/ IQ) as their white/ Europid modern day Western counterparts.

His views on all Japanese people as expressed to Thinking critical:

[Japanse people]are an innately cruel ,vicious and breathtakingly arrogant race of people as their barbarous conduct in the Pacific during the Second World War clearly demonstrated. They are intensely xenophobic and fanatically racist as well. The bastards were right on our doorstep in 1943, and if it wasn't for Uncle Sam we would have been f**ked. They got what they deserved at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, thank God.

His views about all Australian aboriginal people (or possibly New Zealand Maori people or both) as expressed to Thinking critical:

As for your own primitive, spear-chucking, moko-faced, haka-dancing "culture", guess what ? it' stone - cold dead, bro'., that's what Stream-rollered flat by the objectively superior cultural values, morality, customs, institutions social manners and mores of modern white/European Western civilization. Game over.You should bear in mind at all times that you are very LUCKY to have be permitted to reside in this country; if a lot of people, (myself included), had their way you would not be.

This hate-filled odious character must not be allowed to go through these occasional periods of masquerading as a thinking man who is amenable to rational argument.