The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

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

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 5:35 am

Greta wrote:
August 9th, 2018, 11:27 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 9th, 2018, 6:48 pm
I was hoping to find some sort of argument which attempted to set out how banning immigration would be a good idea; workable: practical; or valuable.
Not banning but stopping for a while to allow infrastructure to catch up - to see if infrastructure can catch up in a changing climate that will potentially impact on carrying capacity. My entire state is in drought that shows no signs of easing. Our food bowls are rapidly being rezoned and converted into housing estates, mines or desert. Our dams are running ever lower. Yet migration numbers are still very high - driven by corporations.

It wouldn't be less galling if the damned corporations driving the record high immigration numbers actually paid tax; they do not deserve to have any influence until they pay their fair share. The board is tilted ...
A think you have a false perception.
With an ageing population and a continuing fall in the number of children we NEED immigration.
We cannot even fill basic posts in the NHS without encouraging people to come in from abroad.
There is plenty of room. But with austerity making wages and tax receipts drop, and with a government who refuse to invest in the future of the country we are looking at a massive crash.
More spending
More immigration.
More roads, hospitals....

Or wither and die.

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 8:51 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
August 6th, 2018, 2:05 pm
Steve3007:

Dachshund:



Dachshund seems to be ignoring my posts, and with good reason, dogs are not so dumb as to not try to avoid being beaten.

From the Wiki article on esoteric interpretation of the Quran:





It goes on:



Far from forbidding interpretation, it points to the necessity of interpretation, but warns against the claims of a definitive interpretation and those who would interpret for their own purposes.

Here are a few other translations of the passage:

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp ... =3&verse=7

As this illustrates there is no translation without interpretation. The passage itself requires interpretation. As 3:8 makes clear, “their own interpretation” or “those in whose hearts is deviation” or “doubt” or “perversity” stand opposed to guidance from the Lord for understanding.

What Dachshund fails to see is that his claim that there can be no interpretation is his own perverse interpretation based on a heart that is deviation and intent on sowing doubt and discord.

But esoteric interpretation is only part of the story. There is also the history of exoteric interpretation, that is, tafsir: http://islam.uga.edu/quran.html

Foolosoph4,

The entire business of esoteric interpretatons of the Koran is not the concern of the average, ordinary, mainstream Muslim. Esoteric interpretations of the Koran are primarily of interest to only a small "elite" minority of high falutin' Islamic intellectuals and theological mystics, i.e those uncommon individuals who are drawn to contemplate the possible metaphysical and spiritual implications of what is written in the Koran; - who are fascinated with the task of trying to decipher and analyse the "covert" allegorical, allusory, metaphorical and symbolic, etc; aspects /meaning of the text. When it comes to consideration of how the everyday, common or garden variety Muslim, that is how the MAJORITY of Muslims interprets the Koran , I put it to you that they interpret it they way they have been taught to interpret it by mainstream Islamic clerics, and this is in a primarily EXOTERIC manner, that is is according to the overt, explicit, literal word and law as it printed in black and white in the material text of the book.

By the way, with respect to the validity of esoteric interpretations of the Koran you conveniently forgot to mention the fact that mainstream Islamic theologians have only ever been willing to accept the legitimacy of esoteric interpretation of of Islamic sacred scripture if certain conditions were met, and ,(to quote your own source), "ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS THAT THE (ESOTERIC) INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE KORAN"

[Deleted personal attack]


So, now that we have sorted that out, let me ask you again , do you , or do you not accept the fact that there are some 167 jihad verses in the Koran that refer explicitly to "jihad" as armed, violent aggressive, warfare against the member of all other religions. Do you accept that these verses are clearly, explicitly and incontrovertibly laden with hatred and intolerance. Do you accept the fact that there is no question - no possibility of any sane adult confusing their literal meaning in any way? Do you accept the fact that these verses of violence/hatred/intolerance have long been ruled - by an overwhelming consensus of expert opinion in Muslim jurisprudence - to completely abrogate all of the (earlier "Mecca phase") peaceful, charitable and tolerant verses of the Koran ?

Please let me know. A simple "Yes" or "No" in response to the questions above will suffice, Foolosoph4; in order words please spare me any more of your
nebulous hermeneutical "clap-trap" when you respond, mate; (It tends to want to make me "reach for my revolver", if you know what I mean).

Regards


Dachshund

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2276
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Hereandnow » August 10th, 2018, 10:12 am

Dachshund
Islamic sacred scripture contains a considerable amount of what DC and I would call "hate speech"; that is it contains many exhortations to Muslims to perpetrate acts of indiscriminate violence , intolerance, and discrimination against all other religions. moreover, Muslim's are indoctrinated from the time they are children to believe that the "hate speech" in the Koran and Sunnah is literally the word/will of God (Allah) as revealed to the prophet Mohammad ( whom they are taught to regard as being "the perfect man"). Until this hate speech is purged - completely and permanently from Islamic holy scripture there will never be an end to violent Islamic extremism nor any of the other antisocial, non-violent immoral behaviours that infuse the social manners and mores that shape life in Muslim communities/enclaves in the West, such as the perfunctory preaching of hate by imams in Mosques, the emotional/moral brutalisation and degradation of women and girls and so on.

Do you GEDDIT Steve, old man? Has the "penny dropped" yet, mate ? (! :roll: ) I mean , it's really not "rocket science", Stevo !!
The christian bible has all of the above. When shall we begin condemning this religion? It's not rocket science.

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 10:25 am

I am not sure why my suggestion that in "conveniently" failing to note that the source he was quoting (re the escoteric interpretation of the Koran) explicitly stated that mainstream Islamic theologian/clerics insist that esoteric interpretations of the Koran are only deemed legitimate/valid if they are - first and foremost - consistent with the literal meanings of the word/will and law of Allah that are printed in black and white in pages the physical text, Foolosoph4 was being devious was deleted from the post of mine above ? That he was being devious by clearly endeavouring to obfuscate the issue under discussion; that he was being devious in deliberately trying to "muddy the waters" of the debate by throwing in a handfuls of what he knew full well was nothing more than irrelevant academic waffle. That he had, in short, been caught "red-handed" and exposed as an "intellectual" shyster. What was wrong with my pointing out this fact?

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 10:34 am

Hereandnow wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 10:12 am
Dachshund
Islamic sacred scripture contains a considerable amount of what DC and I would call "hate speech"; that is it contains many exhortations to Muslims to perpetrate acts of indiscriminate violence , intolerance, and discrimination against all other religions. moreover, Muslim's are indoctrinated from the time they are children to believe that the "hate speech" in the Koran and Sunnah is literally the word/will of God (Allah) as revealed to the prophet Mohammad ( whom they are taught to regard as being "the perfect man"). Until this hate speech is purged - completely and permanently from Islamic holy scripture there will never be an end to violent Islamic extremism nor any of the other antisocial, non-violent immoral behaviours that infuse the social manners and mores that shape life in Muslim communities/enclaves in the West, such as the perfunctory preaching of hate by imams in Mosques, the emotional/moral brutalisation and degradation of women and girls and so on.

Do you GEDDIT Steve, old man? Has the "penny dropped" yet, mate ? (! :roll: ) I mean , it's really not "rocket science", Stevo !!
The christian bible has all of the above. When shall we begin condemning this religion? It's not rocket science.
HAN,

I am more happy to discuss with you in detail how the violent passages of the Old Testament differ from the violent verses of the Koran, but, really this is an issue that should be dealt with in a separate thread.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2276
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Hereandnow » August 10th, 2018, 11:13 am

Dachshund: slippery of you, as usual. But no: now is the time to explain your inconsistencies and contradictions for here they are raised. Playing politics in philosophy is not permitted.

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 11:25 am

HAN,

Very well. If you insist that I provide an account of how any comparison of the violence in the Old Testament to that of the violence in the Koran is clearly one of "chalk" being compared to "cheese" I will humbly oblige. But not tonight, "Josephine", because I tell you that my pet dachshund and I are both very tired, its late where we are and time (yawn) for our "beddy -byes".

Regards

Dachshund

Steve3007
Posts: 5823
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Steve3007 » August 10th, 2018, 11:26 am

Daschund wrote:I put it to you that there are many young men in England - literally millions - who feel alienated from society. You will typically find them living in England's most economically and socially deprived neighbourhoods, in local authority districts like: Middlesborough; Knowlesly, Liverpool; Bradford; Burnley; Birmingham and Great Yarmouth to name but a handful of the many severely disadvantaged and underprivileged regions that exist in England today. In these places there are no shortage of young men who have grown up living in dire poverty and all of of the harsh privations that it brings to bear; and it is not surprising that they might hold a perception they have been the victims of unjust discrimination; not surprising that they might feel an acute sense of being politically marginalised, of being culturally forsaken/ isolated and otherwise profoundly alienated from life in the mainstream of British society. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of them DO - and I cannot blame them ! The point I wish to make is that despite the profound sense of alienation that afflicts millions of young men in England, the overwhelming majority of them DO NOT, in consequence, ultimately decide that they must strap a belt of high-explosives to themselves, walk into the foyer of a concert hall full of innocent teenagers and detonate the bomb they are carrying with the express intention of murdering as many of them as possible in the name of Allah.
Essentially the same point is made in the speech by David Cameron (just after the part where he called you a fascist) which I've already told you I agree. Here:
David Cameron wrote:On the other hand, there are those on the soft left who also ignore this distinction. They lump all Muslims together, compiling a list of grievances, and argue that if only governments addressed these grievances, the terrorism would stop. So, they point to the poverty that so many Muslims live in and say, ‘Get rid of this injustice and the terrorism will end.’ But this ignores the fact that many of those found guilty of terrorist offences in the UK and elsewhere have been graduates and often middle class...
True to your usual form you have been cautious and non-committal in stating that social "alienation and (lack of) empathy" are merely one of the "many reasons" that a British youth may become an jihadist and perpetrate an atrocity such that which occurred in Manchester.
I add qualifiers like this because life is complicated and different people do things for different reasons, but it's not usually possible to add these details into a single post without making it unwieldy. But unlike you, I do not like to make sweeping generalisations about people, such as saying that all Japanese people are monsters who deserved, inshallah, to be killed with Nuclear weapons. We're talking here about the clarity or ambiguity of words and whether we think they should stand on their own or need to be interpreted. As I've said, if you think the words of the Koran stand on their own as exhortations to commit immoral acts then you need to accept that so do your words.

Anyway, yes, another one of the reasons why young men commit atrocities like the one in Manchester is that they appear to believe they are doing as the Koran commands them to do.
While it is technically true that the experience of social alienation arising from factors like socio-economic disadvantage and cultural/racial discrimination may play a role in propelling a vulnerable young man along a trajectory that ends in his becoming an Islamic extremist, the notion that social alienation is, in any sense, a root cause of tragedies like the suicide-bombing in Manchester totally misunderstands the true locus of radical/extremist Islamic terrorism.
As I said, I agree that such things as social alienation and anger at the perceived injustices of western governments towards Muslim countries are not the only reasons why people do these things.
If you are ever to fully understand the FUNDAMENTAL, PRIMARY CAUSE of terrorist outrages like the one in Manchester you must first understand that the ideology of radical/extremist Islam is ROOTED IN ISLAMIC SACRED SCRIPTURE

Daschund,

You've told me before that you're not prepared to talk to any Muslims about this subject. But you are prepared to talk to me, and some other non-Muslims here, at quite considerable length. Why?

Spectrum says he's spent years studying the Koran. Great. We apparently have an expert witness. But clearly a witness with a strong pre-existing agenda. So what other expert witnesses might there be? Presumably Muslim scholars. But they presumably have a strong agenda too. The opposite agenda to Spectrum's. Ideally we want someone who has studied Islam in depth for many years but who has no axe to grind and can be objective. But there are many possible subjects that we can spend years studying, so there are relatively few people who have the time and inclination to study this particular subject in the required amount of depth unless they have a strong pro or anti Islam agenda that drives them to do so, at the expense of studying other things. I know I haven't got the time or inclination, for that very reason.

So what to do?

In these situations the usual thing to do is to find expert witnesses but to balance the pro against the anti. We've heard from Spectrum. And you appear to claim some knowledge too. You're both anti. So find some pros. Talk to some Muslim scholars.

But you won't do that. You say you won't do it because you don't need to because you claim that your side of the argument is self-evidently objectively correct. So tell that to a Muslim scholar and see what his rejoinder is. Then the audience can decide for themselves whether they think your claim to self-evident objective correctness is justified.

Likewise, I claim it to be true, based on your words, that you advocate slavery and ethnic cleansing, because that is what a literal interpretation of various "verses" from your posts shows. Should I just declare this to be non-negotiable objective truth? Or should I challenge you to defend those words?

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 10th, 2018, 11:43 am

Dachshund:
The entire business of esoteric interpretatons of the Koran is not the concern of the average, ordinary, mainstream Muslim.
The existence of esoteric as well as exoteric interpretation point to the fact that you are simply wrong when you claim there can be no interpretation. This is not a minor or esoteric point. It determines how the text is to be understood by the average, ordinary, mainstream Muslim. The entire business of esoteric interpretations of the Bible is not the concern of the average, ordinary, mainstream Christian, and yet esoteric interpretation has informed how they understand it. It should be obvious that change is not only possible, it is inevitable. But not all change is positive, and what one considers positive another will see as negative. Considering your own confused notion of Liberalism it is not clear whether you would see a more liberal Islam as a positive or negative.
I put it to you that they interpret it they way they have been taught to interpret it by mainstream Islamic clerics, and this is in a primarily EXOTERIC manner, that is is according to the overt, explicit, literal word and law as it printed in black and white in the material text of the book.
From the Washington Institute, 2001:
Recent events have highlighted the crisis in leadership in the Muslim world. Over the past 150 years, Muslim society has undergone a period of rapid transformation that has produced three groups of leaders: clerics, lineage-based traditional groups, and central authorities. Over the past two to three decades there has been a collapse of the latter two groups. In many countries of the Muslim world, the political structures -- be they dynasties, dictatorships, or democracies -- have become progressively weaker, leading to a grave imbalance between the three groups. As a result, the religious clerics, who used to act simply as religious functionaries, have become spokesmen and guiding lights. The distance between the Westernized elite of Muslim countries and the masses has only exacerbated the problem. Weak political leadership, combined with the Western media's treatment of Islam, has perpetuated the incorrect view that Islam is radical and extremist in its interpretations, that it locks women up, and prohibits freedom of expression.

On the religious front, the Muslim world can seek to emulate the work of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of modern Pakistan, who created the first independent Muslim nation. He was a humanist, not a mullah, and showed the world the complementary relationship between Islam and democracy. In contrast, Kemal Ataturk -- who transformed Turkey into a secular state -- was seen more as a brilliant military commander than a viable political model.

Another strategy that preserves the reform ideal but is different from the Jinnah model is that of the "Muslim reformers" such as Mohammad Abdu and Mohammad Rashid Rida, who sought to reconcile Islam with Western notions of nationalism and patriotism. Recent elections in Pakistan, however, have shown that Muslim reformers may not be the people's choice to lead Muslim societies. Every time there has been an open, democratic election, the religious parties have never received more than five or six seats in a parliament of 250-plus representatives. The people of Pakistan do not want to be led by religious reformers; they prefer to decide for themselves how to practice and interpret Islam.

As for the nature of extremist Islam, the Taliban has not had as large an impact on the Muslim world as many would imagine. Within the Muslim world, the Taliban is the "embarrassing cousin from the sticks"; it represents Islam's unsophisticated and long lost relative -- one who only causes his family shame. Its structure was not that of a state, but of a primitive tribe that subscribes to a premodern notion of Islam. As time passes, this specific brand of Islam will die out, and it will be considered a laughable disgrace. The Taliban is merely a speck on the large map of the Muslim world, and its disintegration cannot be considered a trigger that will lead to a reevaluation of radical Islamism.

(https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pol ... cs-on-terr)
Dachshund:
By the way, with respect to the validity of esoteric interpretations of the Koran you conveniently forgot to mention the fact that mainstream Islamic theologians have only ever been willing to accept the legitimacy of esoteric interpretation of of Islamic sacred scripture if certain conditions were met, and ,(to quote your own source), "ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA IS THAT THE (ESOTERIC) INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE KORAN"
That is tacit in the quote from 3:7-8. The problem of “perverse” interpretation applies to clerics as well. And, by the way, clerics are not a monolithic entity that speak with a single voice, as the quote from the Washington Institute indicates.
So, now that we have sorted that out, let me ask you again , do you , or do you not accept the fact that there are some 167 jihad verses in the Koran that refer explicitly to "jihad" as armed, violent aggressive, warfare against the member of all other religions.
I would ask you again but I know your answer - you think the Bible is different because the violence is “divinely ordained”. But this is, of course, just what your Muslim counterpart would say.

Someone picking through verses of the New Testament will find evidence of cannibalism - eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus.

Ruling over and judging Jews:
And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29-30)
Jesus was bent on violence and death that he commanded his followers to turn against their own families as their enemies!
… if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one (Luke 22:36)

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. (Matthew 10:34-36)
There are fundamentalist, extremist, militant, terrorist Christians. Would you condemn Christianity and the Bible because of the violent actions of the KKK or other Christian terrorists?
It tends to want to make me "reach for my revolver", if you know what I mean.
Yes, I know what you mean, and it shows just how much you have in common with those you condemn. Wanting to shoot me because I do not agree with you! Should I take this threat seriously? How close are you to the tipping point?

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 12:22 pm

David Cooper wrote:
August 8th, 2018, 4:15 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
August 8th, 2018, 8:01 am
Have you spoken to actual real-life Muslims about this? Have you said to a Muslim "It is an objective fact that your holy book condones unjustified violence. What do you say about that?"? If so, what do they reply? You must surely be aware that there are Muslims who dispute the things you claim to be objective facts about their religion. What have their arguments been? In general: Can you fairly and honestly elucidate the arguments of people who disagree with you?
I have spoken to such people, and they just go silent, refusing to speak to you again. They don't condemn the hate - they don't want it to be there, and they don't appreciate having it pointed out to them, or having it labelled as hate. And that's the big problem - they aren't bad people, but they're locked into something which requires them to be apologists for hate. They brush it under the carpet and pretend to themselves that it isn't there, but every once in a while, someone in their community reads the hate and thinks, "Why aren't we doing that? Why aren't we doing Islam by the book?" And then you have a terrorist emerging out of a group of people who are almost entirely benign - their one failing is that they keep the hate alive by hiding it from themselves while propagating it down the generations. We can't have peace so long as people keep that hate going - it is a cancer that needs to be cut out.
Steve,

The reason that I do traipse about whatever Western nation I happen to be residing in at the time asking "actual, real-life" common or garden everyday, ordinary Muslims on the metaphorical "high street" whether or not they agree that their sacred scripture contains explicit divinely ordained ( in the case of the Koran) exhortations to perpetrate acts of hate-fuelled, intolerant , aggressive,physical violence against the members of all other religions is that I already know what David Cameron confirms ( in his post above) from his own experience is true. That is, that they (the Muslims I might interview in the manner you recommend) will simply "plead the Fifth", they simply will not give a straight, open and honest answer to the question. Either that, or they will declare that the violence of extremist groups like ISIS has nothing whatsoever to do with true Islam, which is simply NOT true, or that one needs to appreciate the violent verses of their Koran you are referring to can only be properly understood by subjecting them to a complex, "esoteric", convoluted, labyrinthine, numinous, mysterious, mystical, spiritual etc; interpretive process of some kind or another, which again is simply not true.

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 12:51 pm

Foolosoph4,

As I have said (above) it is now well past my bedtime, so I will get back to you anon (but not right now) re your post above. But before I sign off, can I just say that when you present material like this...

"Someone picking through verses of the New Testament will find evidence of canabalism - eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus"

That REALLY IS scraping the bottom of the barrel, mate, and you know it. Are you proud of yourself ?

Finally,when I said the material you had posted tended make me "reach for my revolver", I did not mean that I had any intention/desire to literally shoot you, but rather that I have a profound aversion to "intellectual" sophistry - I an intensely allergic to it - it sickens me - and (metaphorically speaking) I experience a passionate urge to "blow it away" when ever it obtrudes itself on my notice.


Regards


Dachshund

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

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 12:53 pm

In the same way the Christian scriptures might contain exhortations to perpetrate acts of hate-fuelled, intolerant , aggressive, physical violence against the members of all other religions, but not that many want to do that.
Those that do tend to rely on their governments to do that on their behalf as they continue to do so pretty much every day since the end of WW2.
In fact WW2 was a short hiatus in this age-long antipathy amongst those of differing religions; being more about imperialist ideologies.
Since it is the West that has caused the majority of death and destruction it is more puzzling why Muslim countries do not ban westerners.

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Dachshund » August 10th, 2018, 1:00 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 12:53 pm
In the same way the Christian scriptures might contain exhortations to perpetrate acts of hate-fuelled, intolerant , aggressive, physical violence against the members of all other religions, but not that many want to do that.
They DO NOT contain any such exhortations -FULL STOP.

Dachshund

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

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by ThomasHobbes » August 10th, 2018, 1:02 pm

Dachshund wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 1:00 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
August 10th, 2018, 12:53 pm
In the same way the Christian scriptures might contain exhortations to perpetrate acts of hate-fuelled, intolerant , aggressive, physical violence against the members of all other religions, but not that many want to do that.
They DO NOT contain any such exhortations -FULL STOP.

Dachshund
Wrong!
Jesus advises to accept the teaching of the OT, and the OT is all about genocide.

OT is part of Christianity, and Christians are responsible for the majority of death and destruction.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why the West must ban Muslim immigration

Post by Fooloso4 » August 10th, 2018, 1:07 pm

Dachshund:
That REALLY IS scraping the bottom of the barrel, mate, and you know it. Are you proud of yourself ?
Have I made my point? This illustrates the very thing that you are doing.
Intellectual sophistry
Citing the Washington Institute is not sophistry. Citing the Oxford Research Encyclopedias is not sophistry. Pointing out that almost 70,000 Muslim clerics have come together to pass a fatwa against global terrorist organizations, including the Taliban, al Qaeda and the militant group that calls itself the Islamic State, is not sophistry.

My position is that reform is needed. The problem is that you are denying the possibility of reform, originally claiming that interpretation was forbidden, but now saying only that the typical Muslim is led by their cleric. But the clerics do not form a monolithic group. Many of them wish to see reform as well. I have cited addition sources discussing efforts to reform. But you wish only to abolish Islam.

Post Reply