Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

[Sy Borg]

Me, BG. I asked him to find things I said that were not just observations but exhortations of sorts. I still think I was just describing based on the large Chinese petition against Australia's Safe Schools program aimed at reducing harassment of gay students, and the fact that east Asian culture is hardly known for kind treatment of animals.

The latter I understand because these countries have had to deal with the dual struggle of poverty and high population density, so kindness to other species was no doubt a luxury that many could not afford in simply staying alive. I would just appreciate not having to put up with "death stares" at my dog by a proportion of Chinese pedestrians when I walk her - that aspect is just one of those annoying cross cultural differences that can happen with first generation migrants that normally iron themselves out in the next generation. I expect that attitudes towards women's and gay rights will also become much more westernised in the first generations born here.

Due to the insular nature of Islam, these changes often seem to take longer. Still, by second generation I expect most of them will be more comfortably assimilated. I remember grave concerns here about Greek and Italian migrants, and then Vietnamese, with many youngsters forming gangs. One more generation and these kinds of ethnic gangs have all but diminished, but now there's the Lebanese and Sudanese gangs. The greatest impediment to the assimilation of migrants is probably poverty by serving isolate them.

[Burning ghost]

I think there is a lot of concern around about ideas of "Safe" environments. It is quite disturbing that some of the more extreme views have pushed such thinking to the point where whenever I hear "safe" I think the exact opposite.

I looked at the site and it is not about "reducing the harassment of gay students." It is careful not to mention anything like that because in today's world if you are for or against enforcing measures to help this or that group there is a constant backlash against it from multiple angles.

I believe it would be more helpful if we talked about running schools properly, focused on the actual exposure of knowledge to students and left racial, sexual and ideological problems to the body of the government. Creating independent support groups for this or that "group" does not seem like progress to me. I think if we're talking about a broad category then it has some use, but in general what I see is more and more compulsion for smaller groups to play the victim and do little more than than increase hatred.

Refer to the very recent debarcle with Lindsey Shepherd in Canada. In this respect I am sympathetic to these attitudes for younger students, but at university level we are dealing with young adults NOT uninformed children (although I have to admit there is a large degree of naivety in young adults, but I don't think the answer is to barricade them off from all possible upset - life can be hellish, the quicker they leanrn that the better.)

What has happened is extreme hysterical reactions fueled by the media. When it gets to the point that teachers are scared to shout at a student, or have a toddler sit on their knee, I think we really need to take a step back and think seriously about the long term repercussions of enforcing rules that are in place to guard against extremely low level threats - not all people are murderous sexual perverts, or bigoted and violent toward this or that group. Prejudices are part of human nature and to enforce rules to rigidly confine them does not seem like a healthy way to deal with the problem.

If someone thinks muslims should be banned then I want to hear why they think this. I may strongly disagree, but I can also learn to sympathise with such a position if I understand it and maybe be able to suggest a way to open up dialogue and engage with the problems we face (be they substantiated or not.) If someone is deeply homophobic I would not suggest they go to a gay bar. Maybe they can simply avoid gay people for the rest of their lives and I have no issue with them being homophobic, but I would still challenge them whenever they said such a thing.

It is okay to hold opinions and views that other people strongly disagree with. And by saying this I am not so naïve as to not realise that opinions spill over into other more political areas. When people begin to act violently (I mean PHYSICALLY violently) upon such opinion then I will step in and knock them down. Until they do so I will use discourse as a means to avoid violence, and along the way I accept that many will suffer the consequences due to the slow and steady advancement toward open and considered communication.

Freedom is full of dangers. There is no such thing as a safe world without danger. Danger is not a bad thing, only ignorance (if it is too small and static) breeds danger expotentially and instills ideologies that are simply not willing to open up any kind of civil discourse.

note: I don't find it helpful to "derail" threads because you simply disagree with the content either (as tempting as this can be - I admit I have perhaps erred in that regard myself in the heat of the moment and shifted the focus of a thread in the past.)

[Wayne92587]

Spectrum;

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 True !!

Islamic Law, Sharia; is currently based upon the Selfish-Righteousness of the Muslim Cleric, Imam (False Prophet).

Islamic Law is based upon the interpretations of the conversations between Mohammad and his followers.

Mohammad, as in so many ancient religions, was not put into writing.

Mohammad did not trust the written word because it is to easily perverted.

Mohammad did not write the Muslim Holy Book, the Quaran!

Mohammad warred the Islamic people not to do as he believed the Jew and the Christian had done, pervert the word of God; the Jewish God being vengeful and the Christian God being an angry God.

Allah the God of Islam is a compassionate God.

If Islamic law says that in a no-choice situation it is ok for a Muslim to lie and pretend [Taqiyya] to be friends with non-Muslims.

You can show compassion some of the time but you can only be compassionate if you show Compassion all of the time.

I do not remember nor the exact words, but my understanding is that Jesus is supposed to have said as your treat others so you treat me.

Islamic, all Moral, Law as an interpretation of word of God, the word of God being Sacred is an Abomination because it is based upon Self-ish Righteousness, the individual being able to determine what is Right or Wrong.

Many times what is morally wrong, because the individual is free to do as he will is made right, by self-ish righteousness.

Moral Law is a failure in it's Promise to bring order to the Chaos.

For the Muslim is Islamic, Moral, law as interpreted by the Imam, is absolute,
does not allow man the Freedom to do as he will.

The Freedom to do as you will is Greater than Moral Law.

The Honor Killing in Islam is born of Shari, Islamic, Moral Law.

If the Muslim Woman is not covered and is raped, it is her fault, the result being in the honor killing of the female, the Rapist going unpunished, the father, the husband the brother doing the killing.

The Muslim is forbidden to show joy, happiness, it being amoral.
The only emotion that is not forbidden is anger.

Look at female circumcision,

The Islam Male Chauvinistic Pigs are afraid to set the Female.

Islamic Law is born of Machismo, a strong, exaggerated sense of Masculinity.

The Male, Man, has a perverted sense of Manliness.

This perverted sense of Manliness raises its Ugly Head in every aspect of the Muslim, the Islamic World of Illusion, as self-ish Righteousness of Islamic Law, Sharia.

Islam is under the mark of the Beast, a Male Chauvinistic Pig.

Islam is representative of the Four-Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum;

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 True !!

Why?

Note https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Taqiyya

Re the other points, I agree with those negatives you have ascribed to Islam and they can be supported from the verses of the Quran or the Ahadith.

[Wayne92587]

The interpretation of Sacred Knowledge, the word of God or Allah is an abomination.

Islamic Law, Sharia, Islamic morality is born of Sel-fish Righteousness, based upon interpretation.
Moral Law in any form is an abomination.

Would that I could I would destroy the Law, Moral Law!!!

[Wayne92587]

The Colors play an important roll in the Islamic World of Illusion, the fundamentalist male wearing white and the Muslim Female wearing Back.

In the old cowboy movies of the old west, the Good Guy rode a which horse and the bad guy rode on a black horse, or at the very least wore Black.

I heard a voice say come and see, I came and saw a Rider on a White Horse wearing a crown, going about concurring and to destroy.

The rider on the whit horse wearing a crown is the Good Guy, not having a specific individual in mind goes about concurring and destroying all that is Evil, Bad.

The Muslim Female wears black as an indication that she is Evil and must be controled, dominated, has not need to become educated.

[Dlaw]

Well, we could eliminate a lot of the worries about immigration by allowing in only women and girls.

[Spectrum]

Well, we could eliminate a lot of the worries about immigration by allowing in only women and girls.

Ok if it will not effect the gender ratio balance and sexism.
As for Muslim women, have you heard of Linda Sansour and other female jihadists?

[Burning ghost]

Well, we could eliminate a lot of the worries about immigration by allowing in only women and girls.

Ok if it will not effect the gender ratio balance and sexism.
As for Muslim women, have you heard of Linda Sansour and other female jihadists?

If you think this through it is probably not the best idea. This will be used against the west ... soon enough they'll be saying "There're stealing our women and girls!" Imagine some poor boy having his mother and sisters taken away from him. What do you think will happen to him? Would he be mature enough to understand? Would he praise the country that took his family away and left him alone?

This relates to the point the Orwell was making about the double standards of society. Men can die in wars, but women and children can be protected. What is more the thought of extending this to boys is vile.

Just to reiterate my positon I think caution is required when allowing Muslims into the country given that there is fundamentalism in Islam. People will be profiled because the state of the media today has enforced the stereotype and by doing so likely fed the beast we wish to defeat. Immigration should be kept to skilled workers that are needed (regardless of political persuasion or religious ideology - obviously any severe radicals should be fished out if possible.) and to refugees. The problem is more about integration. If more consideration was put into where and how refugees were located I doubt there'd be many big problems; but there would still be problems.

It is a tricky problem. Blanket bans on particular groups (other than groups that include known "war criminals," "murderers" and "rapists") makes no logical sense. To ban any group because large portions of their "group" are currently considered to be "a bad sort" is not something that makes too much sense to me.

The major problem is knowing how to measure peoples cultural values and attitudes. Being able to see if they adjust to foreign laws and societal norms. It is okay to be racist, bigoted and homophobic; where western society draws the line is with open action against people based on race, sexuality or ideology. It is appears the biggest contradiction of these points is the "ideology", because we cannot screen for political or religious views so easily. The best we can do is remain vigilant about any radical views being opening pushed and enforced with action and how to prevent such opposed thoughts to western ways from festering and growing into dangerous communities and political organisations.

The price of freedom is danger.

[Spectrum]

Ok if it will not effect the gender ratio balance and sexism.
As for Muslim women, have you heard of Linda Sansour and other female jihadists?

If you think this through it is probably not the best idea.

I agree in general it is not a good idea.
What I stated earlier, given there is no serious problems re gender ratio balance, sexism and any other issues then it is OK. In this case only matured women who volunteered would be accepted.

As for Muslims, no male nor female should be accepted, because of the religious ideology and the estimated natural 20% of evil prone who will be inspired by the evil laden elements therein. The critical factor here is the problem with the ideology not the Muslims as human beings.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Well, you know we disagree on the later part of that. Even if your rational has produced a conservative estimate, I am not willing to punish 80% of people because 20% of them have completely different views and moral values (which they must if they are not willing to act upon them.)

This is not relevant but made me laugh by balls off! :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9OhyDkOfZE

[Dlaw]

Well, we could eliminate a lot of the worries about immigration by allowing in only women and girls.

Ok if it will not effect the gender ratio balance and sexism.
As for Muslim women, have you heard of Linda Sansour and other female jihadists?

For all practical purposes, crime - including terrorism - does not exist without men. It's a product of male society entirely. No evidence of a female group EVER producing terrorists of any note or lethality.

There's a reason mass shooters are 100% male.

[Dlaw]

Ok if it will not effect the gender ratio balance and sexism.
As for Muslim women, have you heard of Linda Sansour and other female jihadists?

If you think this through it is probably not the best idea. This will be used against the west ... soon enough they'll be saying "There're stealing our women and girls!" Imagine some poor boy having his mother and sisters taken away from him. What do you think will happen to him? Would he be mature enough to understand? Would he praise the country that took his family away and left him alone?

This relates to the point the Orwell was making about the double standards of society. Men can die in wars, but women and children can be protected. What is more the thought of extending this to boys is vile.

Just to reiterate my positon I think caution is required when allowing Muslims into the country given that there is fundamentalism in Islam. People will be profiled because the state of the media today has enforced the stereotype and by doing so likely fed the beast we wish to defeat. Immigration should be kept to skilled workers that are needed (regardless of political persuasion or religious ideology - obviously any severe radicals should be fished out if possible.) and to refugees. The problem is more about integration. If more consideration was put into where and how refugees were located I doubt there'd be many big problems; but there would still be problems.

It is a tricky problem. Blanket bans on particular groups (other than groups that include known "war criminals," "murderers" and "rapists") makes no logical sense. To ban any group because large portions of their "group" are currently considered to be "a bad sort" is not something that makes too much sense to me.

The major problem is knowing how to measure peoples cultural values and attitudes. Being able to see if they adjust to foreign laws and societal norms. It is okay to be racist, bigoted and homophobic; where western society draws the line is with open action against people based on race, sexuality or ideology. It is appears the biggest contradiction of these points is the "ideology", because we cannot screen for political or religious views so easily. The best we can do is remain vigilant about any radical views being opening pushed and enforced with action and how to prevent such opposed thoughts to western ways from festering and growing into dangerous communities and political organisations.

The price of freedom is danger.

If the point of the exercise is NOT to discriminate on the basis of religion and ethnicity but TO discriminate on the basis of potential criminality, accepting only females would be a simple, fair solution to the problem.

It's not women's fault that men produce criminal cartels and terror groups and the fact that women - IN EVERY SOCIETY - are model citizens relative to men should not be ignored.

[Wayne92587]

Spectrum; Taqiyya: All interpretations as what Allah does or does do, allow, say, are an abomination.
All interpretations of sacred, secret, hidden, forbidden Knowledge, are an abomination.

Whomever claims that Allah allows for Taqiyya: is a liar.

[Wayne92587]

Dlaw; we could eliminate a lot of the worries about immigration by allowing in only women and girls.

That won't' work, according to Islamic religious tradition, women are subhuman, are the cause of all suffering, wickedness.