Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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.
Post Reply
Dachshund
Posts: 510
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » June 12th, 2018, 12:14 am

Greta wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 9:19 pm
At present, western cities are groaning under the weight of corporate pressure to keep "importing" more potential customers.

Greta,

You often express concerns the forum relating to the multiplex problems caused by overcrowding where you live.

I must point out, however, that you are a Sydneysider ( for those who do not know, Sydney is the largest city in Australia) and Sydney has had serious problems with congestion for many decades to date. I last visited the city in the early 1980s and even then it, its infrastructure was not coping with the pressure of numbers.

Most of Australia's other capital cities, for example: Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, do not really have any major problems with overcrowding, certainly nothing like the current problems Sydney has.

But, as I say, Greta, Sydney has always been a very busy/ hectic and densely-packed old town. It has always needed better infrastructure.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » June 12th, 2018, 12:43 am

Melbourne has many problems now too, and Sydney's have become much worse.

I am not sure why, in response to crowding, about half of Sydneysiders have resorted to driving truck-sized cars. It is the exact opposite of what is needed.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » June 12th, 2018, 3:32 am

Dachshund wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 7:54 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:
June 11th, 2018, 5:43 am
Racism is not a viable philosophy.

Let's ban all racists!
Given the fact that you admire Thomas Hobbes, I figure that you are a white boy who lives in the West, probably in the UK or the US, for example, and probably in some relatively leafy middle-class neighbourhood.

If so, before you start preaching about racism here's what you should do to ensure that you have a sound education in the basic principles of the subject matter...

(1) Write off to the relevant Embassy and see if you can get yourself a travel Visa that gives you permission to stay (as a foreign visitor) in either: (A) Iran or (B) South Africa for a continuous period of 12 months.

(2) If you are successful getting a Visa, then put yourself on a flight to either Tehran or Johannesburg; you choose.

(3) After you arrive in Tehran or Johannesberg, you are to live in either city for the full 12 months, and in that time you are to get out and about and freely mingle with the local inhabitants - immerse yourself fully in the local culture. ( NB: while you are there, in whichever city you have chosen to visit, you are, BTW not permitted to carry any kind defensive weapon like a handgun on your person, nor hire any kind of personal security to escort you as you travel about in either of these places).

(4) If you manage to stay alive for a full 12 months in either Tehran or Johannesburg, and you are still physically able to fly back home ( i.e. you are not in hospital on life support after having been shot, stabbed, bashed and beaten, tortured etc, to within an inch of your life, then, when you are home, log on to this Philosophy Forum again and send a post to tell us all how you got on in Iran or South Africa, and whether not your theories of race and politics have been altered in any way by your experiences abroad.

Regards

Dachshund
Laughable.

I think your mind is unhinged from your reason.

I also think you are a person without a passport who has not been anywhere.

For myself I have spend many happy months in many countries all over the world.

Belgium
Wales
Scotland
France
Portugal
Morocco
Egypt
USA
UK
Mexico
Greece
Italy
Dominican Republic
Rhodes
Cyprus
Laos
Thailand
Cambodia.
Where ever I have gone I've found that people are people and tend to be friendly and tolerant of others' views, even in Islamic countries.

In your twisted mind I do not know what you think I'd learn from your laughable challenge, but nothing I would find would change my mind as to how disgusting is your (ahem!) "philosophy".
Even If I cam back in a body bag that would not be evidence that racism is a good idea.

What sort of crazy world do you inhabit? Why would you think your challenge would change that? LOL

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 501
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Mark1955 » July 5th, 2018, 4:53 pm

Spectrum wrote:
November 20th, 2017, 12:26 am
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.
If you dig your way through the Torah and the Bible you'll find some fairly uncompromising stuff about the heathens. You can still find plenty of Christians and Jews spouting it as well if you go to the wrong places. Picking a religion to hate is like picking a religion to follow, the choice is all yours.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2018, 12:32 am

Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 4:53 pm
Spectrum wrote:
November 20th, 2017, 12:26 am
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.
If you dig your way through the Torah and the Bible you'll find some fairly uncompromising stuff about the heathens. You can still find plenty of Christians and Jews spouting it as well if you go to the wrong places. Picking a religion to hate is like picking a religion to follow, the choice is all yours.
Note the terrible evil laden elements in the OT are abrogated and overriden by the more pacifist maxims of the NT.
Jesus commanded Christians in the NT to love one's enemies and if any Christian were to hate and kill non-Christians, surely Jesus will F..k them on Judgment Day and send the person to hell. This is why there are no Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus but rather they are compelled by their own personal lust of killing and evil.

As for the Torah, Judaism is now a very loose religion and do not have a serious hold on Jews. This is why, empirically, not many Jews are on a killing spree like SOME Muslims who are inspired by the Quran and Allah. If they commit any evil act, they should be condemned.

The Quran is totally a different kettle of fish filled with terrible evils as sanctioned by Allah. The Quran [filled with evil verses] is the perfect unadulterated words of Allah and is commanded to be immutable. Therefore ALL Muslims as covenanted [contracted] must comply with the full terms in the Quran including the evil laden elements to kill non-believer wherever and whenever they can.

Of course, not every Muslims will be that evil but if only 20% of Muslims [very possible] strive to comply to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise, then we have 300 million evil prone Muslims :shock: on the war path against non-Muslims. Note even one lone wolf is bad enough, and it took 18++ to do a 911 and we have a potential pool of 300 million!! :shock:

This why we have this objective statistics;

Image

Don't be an ostrich to the above facts and brush them off.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by LuckyR » July 6th, 2018, 3:03 am

If 20% of Muslims are dangerous, that is 680,000 terrorists in the US right now. Scary, eh ? You better forget about a few well vetted immigrants and start freaking about the sleepers down the road. Even worse, by 2040 Islam will be the second most popular religion in the US.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 501
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Mark1955 » July 6th, 2018, 5:08 am

Spectrum wrote:
July 6th, 2018, 12:32 am
Mark1955 wrote:
July 5th, 2018, 4:53 pm

If you dig your way through the Torah and the Bible you'll find some fairly uncompromising stuff about the heathens. You can still find plenty of Christians and Jews spouting it as well if you go to the wrong places. Picking a religion to hate is like picking a religion to follow, the choice is all yours.
Note the terrible evil laden elements in the OT are abrogated and overriden by the more pacifist maxims of the NT.
Jesus commanded Christians in the NT to love one's enemies and if any Christian were to hate and kill non-Christians, surely Jesus will F..k them on Judgment Day and send the person to hell. This is why there are no Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus but rather they are compelled by their own personal lust of killing and evil.

As for the Torah, Judaism is now a very loose religion and do not have a serious hold on Jews. This is why, empirically, not many Jews are on a killing spree like SOME Muslims who are inspired by the Quran and Allah. If they commit any evil act, they should be condemned.

The Quran is totally a different kettle of fish filled with terrible evils as sanctioned by Allah. The Quran [filled with evil verses] is the perfect unadulterated words of Allah and is commanded to be immutable. Therefore ALL Muslims as covenanted [contracted] must comply with the full terms in the Quran including the evil laden elements to kill non-believer wherever and whenever they can.

Of course, not every Muslims will be that evil but if only 20% of Muslims [very possible] strive to comply to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise, then we have 300 million evil prone Muslims :shock: on the war path against non-Muslims. Note even one lone wolf is bad enough, and it took 18++ to do a 911 and we have a potential pool of 300 million!! :shock:

This why we have this objective statistics;

Image

Don't be an ostrich to the above facts and brush them off.
Yep all the bigoted stuff I expected back in response. Christians and Jews are clever enough to ignore the murderous bits in their books but Muslims aren't, except you only need to take your head out of the sand to see that isn't true. If you want statistics lets look at how many US citizens were killed last year by a) drunk drivers b) white Christian nuts with guns who didn't like their school mates, had just lost their job etc. etc. [of course these people are never Christian terrorists] c) Muslim terrorists.
As I said the choice is yours and it's clear you've taken it.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2018, 5:49 am

Mark1955 wrote:
July 6th, 2018, 5:08 am
Yep all the bigoted stuff I expected back in response.
Go through my post line by line and tell me which point is not factual or not in line with the OP.
Besides I have never objected to your opinions.
So where is the bigotry?
You are merely insulting your own intelligence with your accusations.
Christians and Jews are clever enough to ignore the murderous bits in their books but Muslims aren't, except you only need to take your head out of the sand to see that isn't true.
Show we where did Jesus command Christians to kill in his name in the NT?
If you want statistics lets look at how many US citizens were killed last year by a) drunk drivers b) white Christian nuts with guns who didn't like their school mates, had just lost their job etc. etc. [of course these people are never Christian terrorists] c) Muslim terrorists.
As I said the choice is yours and it's clear you've taken it.
These killings were never inspired by their religion per se.

Muslims kill for various reasons but to topic, there are Muslims who will kill anyone or you merely because you are a disbeliever, i.e. not believing in Islam is an insult to Islam therefore Allah sanction the killing of non-Muslims for that reason, that command is in the book.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Iapetus » July 8th, 2018, 6:01 am

Reply to Spectrum:
Go through my post line by line and tell me which point is not factual or not in line with the OP
OK
“So where is the bigotry?”

More or less everywhere.
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].‬
If you condemn all Muslims because of what some or most Muslims do, then that is bigotry. You are entitled to criticise aspects of the belief with which you disagree. You are not entitled to assume that all ‘believers’ believe exactly the same thing. That is also bigotry.
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.‬
You have mentioned an “immutable theistic belief” – that if you assimilate you will go to hell. You then mention Muslims who try to assimilate. This is either a direct contradiction of your own claim or the ‘assimilaters’ are not true Muslims. If the latter, then you are committing the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy and your views do not correspond to observation. This is bigotry. If you are criticise these ‘Muslims’ on the basis that they are ignorant – and you have – then that is your opinion and not a fact. It is bigotry. You cannot possibly know exactly why every Muslim labels themselves as such. Yet you have determined that they may be ‘not as good Muslims per-se’. That is bigotry. You have also implied that ‘being-more-human’ is in conflict with being a good Muslim (of which you seem to have a very narrow and not clearly-stated definition). That is bigotry.

You mention Taqiyya and I, too, find the principle objectionable. You do not appear, however, to understand that it is interpreted differently by different groups and individuals and, in some instances, it only applies at times of personal threat. There are parallels in other holy books; human and animal sacrifice or the concept of original sin which must be atoned down the generations. Yet you close your eyes to these. You select what suits your argument and are blind to similarities elsewhere. At a minimum this is bias but it seems to me to be far closer to bigotry.
Note the terrible evil laden elements in the OT are abrogated and overriden by the more pacifist maxims of the NT.
This is your view but it is clearly not the view of huge numbers of Jews and Christians. For starters it would throw out many of the significant stories in Genesis and Leviticus which are critical to many religious groups, as well as the ten commandments or the 613 commandments or whatever. If your ‘pacifist maxims’ of the New Testament accept as reasonable the words of Jesus when he tells slaves to obey their masters or that most of the concepts of eternal torment are introduced in the New Testament or if you think that it is reasonable to reject half of the Bible because it does not conform to your personal ideas, then I do not consider that such an argument can, in any way, be regarded as ‘fact’. And, before you mention it, I understand that you claim that God definitely doesn’t exist. We have discussed this on several occasions.
Jesus commanded Christians in the NT to love one's enemies and if any Christian were to hate and kill non-Christians, surely Jesus will F..k them on Judgment Day and send the person to hell.
If you can find some logic in loving one’s enemies in order to send them to hell and still call this a ‘pacifist maxim’, then that is more than I can. It is anything but factual. Or even sensible.
This is why there are no Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus but rather they are compelled by their own personal lust of killing and evil.‬‬
Are you serious?!! Do you expect us to ignore the Crusades, the concepts of a ‘just war’ or a ‘holy war’ or various inquisitions or pogroms? Or the Balkan Wars? Central African Republic? The Mansami National Christian Army in India? Maronite militias in the Lebanon? God’s army in Myanmar? The list could fill a book. Or is this another ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy; you decide what motivates these groups? By ignoring the ‘facts’, you demonstrate bigotry.
Of course, not every Muslims will be that evil but if only 20% of Muslims [very possible] strive to comply to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise, then we have 300 million evil prone Muslims ‬ ‪ on the war path against non-Muslims. Note even one lone wolf is bad enough, and it took 18++ to do a 911 and we have a potential pool of 300 million!!

Firstly, you equate striving to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise with ‘evil prone’ which, in itself, is nonsense. You imply that, if a minority of Muslims is ‘evil prone’, then we should reject the whole of that group. Yet you do not apply the same strictures to other beliefs. That is bigotry. If “one lone wolf is bad enough” and you want to condemn a group for the actions of a lone wolf, then that is bigotry.

I have tackled your use of figures and statistics before. You couldn’t justify them then and you haven’t attempted to do so now. ‬‬‬‬Your employment of ‘facts’ is, to put it extremely mildly, individualistic.
This why we have this objective statistics;‬‬

This is why we have a problem. Statistics are never, in themselves, objective. They have to be interpreted. You never seem to have grasped the idea that most statistical methods produce a level of probability, not certainty. They have inbuilt uncertainties. They can be used to suggest conflicting ideas.

I am certainly not an apologist for Islam. Many of its principles horrify me. I would resist with passion any attempt to turn my part of the world into a caliphate. But I don’t believe that all Muslims want to do that. I have spoken to many who are wonderful people and to others who are horrible. Rather like any other group of people to whom we could apply labels, including atheists, gardeners and quiltmakers.
Don't be an ostrich to the above facts and brush them off.

The ‘facts’ are very, very thin on the ground and you have employed them in extremely dubious circumstances .

We all know that some Muslims kill people and that this is a serious problem. It does not follow that all Muslims want to do the same. I have spoken to passionate Muslim opponents of the Paris massacres. They carried posters declaring, ‘Not in My Name’. I do not judge all Christians by the fundamentalist fruitcakes. I do not assume that all atheists are supporters of Stalin or Mao Zedong. If I have a problem with a particular point of view, then I think it is reasonable to confront the person who espouses that point of view. It is not reasonable to assume that, because two people agree on a certain aspect of theology or morality, then they agree on everything else. That leads to prejudice and bigotry.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » July 8th, 2018, 10:52 pm

I'll address this critical points first and the others later;
Iapetus wrote:
July 8th, 2018, 6:01 am
..
If you condemn all Muslims because of what some or most Muslims do, then that is bigotry. You are entitled to criticize aspects of the belief with which you disagree. You are not entitled to assume that all ‘believers’ believe exactly the same thing. That is also bigotry.
I have never condemn ALL Muslims nor even intend to condemn the extremists.
I have anticipated this blind accusations from Islam apologists, thus I raised this thread;

Do Not Bash Muslims!
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15391

My beef is with Islam the evil ideology not the unfortunate human beings who were born into Muslims families or had emotionally converted to Islam.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » July 9th, 2018, 12:17 am

Spectrum wrote:
July 8th, 2018, 10:52 pm
My beef is with Islam the evil ideology not the unfortunate human beings who were born into Muslims families or had emotionally converted to Islam.
Get real. That sounds almost as convincing as theists claiming that they don't hate gays - just the sin.

Just admit it - you really, really dislike Muslims. That's okay, you are allowed to.

The best reason to ban Muslim immigration is the fact that Islamic countries finally cracked at the perceived exploitation and control by the west and they have used Islam as means of rallying everyone together. Since then, the movement has taken on a life of its own and the fact is that Islam is now effectively at war with the west - even if numerous Muslims and others don't feel that way.

I don't remember Islam being toxic when I was young, rather their ideologies inspired Middle Eastern people to famously extraordinary hospitality and generosity. It's the politics of war, where Islam has been (ab)used as a galvanising agent that is toxic. War IS toxic by definition.

I can be sympathetic to the idea of freezing immigration from nations at which we are at war because you cannot be sure of the migrants' loyalties. However, knowing how politics works, a good portion of these countries' populations would be their own version of "liberals" and "lefties". They would be even more horrified by the fundamentalist madness that's afflicted their their countrymen than we are, plus some would provide quality intel - they know the enemy better than we do.

It comes down to thorough and forward thinking screening of any would-be migrant.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2018, 3:00 am

Greta wrote:
July 9th, 2018, 12:17 am
Spectrum wrote:
July 8th, 2018, 10:52 pm
My beef is with Islam the evil ideology not the unfortunate human beings who were born into Muslims families or had emotionally converted to Islam.
Get real. That sounds almost as convincing as theists claiming that they don't hate gays - just the sin.

Just admit it - you really, really dislike Muslims. That's okay, you are allowed to.
Even if I am allowed to, it is never rational nor wise to invoke negative emotions on Muslims as the victims themselves and the symptoms. If we hate, condemn or dislike Muslims we are only poisoning our own self with toxic chemicals, e.g. cortisol etc.
In addition I have adopted the Boddhisattva vow to be compassionate and have empathy for all humans.
Morally we have to respect the basic humanity dignity of all regardless of the evil acts they have committed.

The focus of the Islamic evils should not be directly on the Muslims per se but attention should be directed at its proximate root cause, i.e. the very malignant evil laden verses in the Quran.

If we get rid of Islam and banned the Quran there will be no more Islamic related evils.
The best reason to ban Muslim immigration is the fact that Islamic countries finally cracked at the perceived exploitation and control by the west and they have used Islam as means of rallying everyone together. Since then, the movement has taken on a life of its own and the fact is that Islam is now effectively at war with the west - even if numerous Muslims and others don't feel that way.

I don't remember Islam being toxic when I was young, rather their ideologies inspired Middle Eastern people to famously extraordinary hospitality and generosity. It's the politics of war, where Islam has been (ab)used as a galvanising agent that is toxic. War IS toxic by definition.
Islam as per the Quran is inherently toxic and malignant. This is objectively proven with the verses in the Quran. The problem is most non-Muslims do not read the Quran and besides the Quran [messy] is not easy to understand, so they just assume Islam being a religion and by normal understanding MUST be peaceful.

By divine laws it is implied a Muslim is one who has entered into a theological contract with Allah and promised to obey all of Allah's command [most are evil] in the Quran in exchange for eternal life in Paradise.

When you were young and even now the majority of Muslims do not take their religion seriously.
But because Islam is inherently evil, the evil in the Quran will be easily triggered in Muslims based on various circumstances. All is needed it to highlight and remind Muslims of their contractual duties if they are to be assured of eternal life in Paradise. This is so evident with suicide bombers everywhere and attacks on innocents because they are disbelievers/infidels.

The fact is there are >1.5 billion Muslims and if 20% of vulnerable Muslims are seduced, that is already a potential 300 million evil prone Muslims. Even if it is 1%, it is already 15 million. :shock:

These days with internet, smartphones, facebook, etc. it is so easy to influence and seduce the vulnerable Muslims to act out their divine duties for Allah. This is so evident.
I can be sympathetic to the idea of freezing immigration from nations at which we are at war because you cannot be sure of the migrants' loyalties. However, knowing how politics works, a good portion of these countries' populations would be their own version of "liberals" and "lefties". They would be even more horrified by the fundamentalist madness that's afflicted their their countrymen than we are, plus some would provide quality intel - they know the enemy better than we do.

It comes down to thorough and forward thinking screening of any would-be migrant.
Whilst I will not hate and condemn all or any Muslim/s I have reservations when it come to dealing with Muslims on a large scale.
The optimal strategy for the 'West' at present is not to admit any Muslim into their countries until there are effective strategies to prevent Muslims attacking/killing non-believers as a divine duty.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Greta » July 9th, 2018, 3:41 am

Spectrum wrote:
July 9th, 2018, 3:00 am
Greta wrote:
July 9th, 2018, 12:17 am
That sounds almost as convincing as theists claiming that they don't hate gays - just the sin.
The focus of the Islamic evils should not be directly on the Muslims per se but attention should be directed at its proximate root cause, i.e. the very malignant evil laden verses in the Quran.
I am still not seeing the difference.

Spectrum wrote:
I don't remember Islam being toxic when I was young, rather their ideologies inspired Middle Eastern people to famously extraordinary hospitality and generosity.
When you were young and even now the majority of Muslims do not take their religion seriously.
BULLSEYE! That is exactly the problem and is common to all Abrahamic religions - they are fine as long as they are not taken literally or too seriously. This makes sense as texts produced during that violent time in history are hardly appropriate handbooks for moral conduct in modern societies.
Spectrum wrote:But because Islam is inherently evil
No, the writers of Abrahamic myths were simply wild, simplistic, ignorant and bloodthirsty. The works are unsuitable for modern life without taking much of the work as metaphorical. BTW. "evil" is a silly, magical word, steeped in superstition and in many ways philosophically nonsensical.
Spectrum wrote:
I can be sympathetic to the idea of freezing immigration from nations at which we are at war because you cannot be sure of the migrants' loyalties. However, knowing how politics works, a good portion of these countries' populations would be their own version of "liberals" and "lefties". They would be even more horrified by the fundamentalist madness that's afflicted their their countrymen than we are, plus some would provide quality intel - they know the enemy better than we do.

It comes down to thorough and forward thinking screening of any would-be migrant.
Whilst I will not hate and condemn all or any Muslim/s I have reservations when it come to dealing with Muslims on a large scale.
The optimal strategy for the 'West' at present is not to admit any Muslim into their countries until there are effective strategies to prevent Muslims attacking/killing non-believers as a divine duty.
If Muslims thought the same way about westerners they would assume that we were all evangelist neocons.

Dachshund
Posts: 510
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » July 9th, 2018, 8:09 am

Spectrum wrote:
July 9th, 2018, 3:00 am
Even if I am allowed to, it is never rational nor wise to invoke negative emotions on Muslims as the victims themselves and the symptoms. If we hate, condemn or dislike Muslims we are only poisoning our own self with toxic chemicals, e.g. cortisol etc.
In addition I have adopted the Bodhisattva vow to be compassionate and have empathy for all humans.
Morally we have to respect the basic humanity dignity of all regardless of the evil acts they have committed.
I take it that if you could re-write history, Spectrum, then In 1939, it would have been better in your opinion if not Winston Churchill, but rather a British political leader who had genuinely adopted the kind of Bodhisattva vow you refer to, had been placed in power in Number 10 Downing Street ? Such a man would be duty bound, I take it, to demonstrate compassion and empathy for Hitler on behalf of the British nation. He would - if I understand you correctly - sincerely believe that he was obliged to respect the fundamental human dignity ( moral worth) of Hitler and his henchmen regardless of the evil acts of violent tyranny they had already committed in Europe before invading Poland, and regardless of the fact that they had made it crystal clear by September 1939 they were fanatically determined to continue ruthlessly oppressing, subjugating and enslaving the entire continent of Europe? In short, this Bodhisattva Prime Minister of Britain would never contemplate dealing with the problem of Hitler and his rampant war machine by authorizing the use of any kind military of force in defence of his own people or their allies, because to intentionally harm or kill a Nazi aggressor would, of course, be to radically disrespect his fundamental human dignity. I mean, putting a bullet through an invading Nazi's soldier's skull does not exactly demonstrate a great deal of compassion or empathy for one's brother man does it, Spectrum? Best, in short, for this hypothetical Bodhisattva PM of Great Britain to just keep humbly pleading with Hitler not to continue doing what he was doing in the hope that one might be able to reason with him and eventually have him see the terrible error of his ways?

Is that what you are saying ?



Regards

Dachshund

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Iapetus » July 9th, 2018, 11:34 am

Reply to Spectrum:
Go through my post line by line and tell me which point is not factual or not in line with the OP
I did that.

So where is the bigotry?


I showed you where. Everywhere.

I have never condemn ALL Muslims nor even intend to condemn the extremists.
I have anticipated this blind accusations from Islam apologists, thus I raised this thread;


I have explained in great detail why I think you have demonstrated bigotry in what you have written. If you condemn any person for their beliefs when you don’t know the details of those beliefs, then that is bigotry. If you make assumptions without justification, then that is bigotry. I am not a blind accuser, nor an apologist for Islam. Don’t look for excuses for your own shortcomings.

Post Reply