Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Jul 16, 2016.
No question about it.
Our country saying "we temporarily do not wish to allow people of your religion into our country until we can solve the problem of violent extremism within your religion and prevent the massacres".
How does this connect with concentration camps and segregation?
In the wake of 84 French murdered and 303 more injured, I can say that 'Muslim Bashing' doesn't even come close to making my list of concerns (it is a very long list by the way). I'm afraid that what I'm more concerned with is 'French Slaughtering'. Especially when, less than a year ago, 130 French were gunned down in cold blood and a further 368 were injured.
Suffice to say, my patience with Islam is nearing breaking point.
I'm curious, what is your solution to this problem?
There is no doctrine of Violence in any western nations laws towards muslims or nonbelivers, just generals and leaders who believe bombing these countries would be the best for their safety. Necessary violence youd might call it (I call it bullshit, we should have never invaded Iraq IMHO, i dont support these wars)
You assume someone isnt violent because someone have been violent towards them at one point. Thats a fallacy, excluding the fact that in the Quran - The Holy book of Muslims, there are several verses commanding you to kill non believers, gays, etc.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
I could point to the History of Islam, since its beginning, when it was started by the brutal warlord muhammed, there has been death and destruction wherever it went, resulting in million of deaths, but i'll let the book speak for itself.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Thats a pathetic and incredibly suicidal view. Sorry but your helpless, you cling to this idea of ''Tolerate the intolerable''
I knew you Germans had completely fucked yourself over with extremist liberal ideology after the war to compensate for WW2, but holy fuck dude, your a cuck.
There is no such Thing as a radical muslim minority
And its neither a peacful religion
I kind of want to see how Vergil reacts to this, he has defended christianity before when Doomsdayprepper condemned the Bible by cherry picking volatile Bible passages, I wonder if he'll do the same for Islam (at a guess, he won't).
Also, yeah you're cherry picking Quran passages to justify your bigotry. While Islam certainly isn't the most peaceful of the 3 abrahamic religions it isn't a book filled with nothing but calls to violence.
'O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine.' - Quran 109:1–6
'Surely those who have faith, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabaeans; whoever accepts faith in God and the last day and performs good deeds, those shall have their reward with their Lord; no fear shall come upon them, nor will they grieve.' - Quran 2:62
'Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.' - Bernard Lewis, noted historian
'The Qur’anic assertion, “Anyone who desires a faith other than islām, it shall not be accepted of him; and in the hereafter he shall be among the losers,” expresses an exclusivist view of religion, but only if the term islām is taken narrowly to refer to Islam as an institutionalized religion. If, however, it is taken to signify a human attitude of total submission (islām) to God, then we are talking not about religious institutions, but about an ideal relationship between God and human beings that transcends all religions, including Islam. (...) Among all the scriptures of the theistic religions the Qur’an is unique in that it sets its worldview within the context of divine Oneness and human diversity, including the plurality of religions' - Mahmoud Ayoub, professor of Religion
Drifter, Islam's one of the most developed religions on Earth, no matter how many vicious passages you post there'll exist a legion of (mostly dead) philosophers and historians that can debunk your views. That's the thing with religion, if you try to classify it then you'll find a practically infinite number of alternate interpretations, but hey continue to espouse bigoted beliefs and fallacious logic, it hasn't stopped any other of the idiots in general discussion.
Completely unrelated but you wouldn't have happened to have used this account before, have you?
I haven't read this thread that clearly exudes quality in every way possible but thought I'd tell something I know about Bosnian Muslims. I once knew a Bosnian Muslim and I asked him about drinking alcohol. He said "We Bosnian Muslims are very strict, we never drink beer...before 12 noon."
Yeah I wont be. All I advocate in this thread is the prosecution of refugee criminals and the deportation of those on terror watch lists. I discovered the last time I tried it that I am shit at debating about the Bible, so I'll leave the Quran alone.
That is perfectly reasonable though, and is allready something firmly implemented.
Very few outright criminal-terrorists slip through, they are turned around and sent back home
(we often hear about how terrorist attacks are perpetrated by natives of the country. Albeit Muslim natives, still natives)
I guess there is room for improvement, which should go without saying :/
You forgot to mention the verse before that, where basically the Muslims was supposed to fight only those who fight them, and even then Allah asks us Muslims to never transgress the limit and went overboard, because Allah hates transgressors. And that interpretation of 'Fitnah' of yours (the disbelief one) is wrong, the 'unrest' one is right. In Arabic words, as interpreted into my mother language, 'Fitnah' means creating disorders, like exiling your own brothers from their own home, taking what's rightfully belong to others, and hurting or disturbing others rights of other faith/beliefs. I'm not sure where you're taking your translations/interpretation of the Alquran, but seriously the proper way to read and interpret the Alquran is directly from the Arabic form.
From what I know, this is one of the many verses sent down during the days of battling and fighting when the Quraishy Arabs vastly outnumber the Muslims Arabs, which is during the earlier prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him). Verse 191-193 of Chapter 2 you quoted above, if I remember correctly, specifically sent down during the Battle at Badr, the first battle the Muslim Arabs ever fought back then. You know how many numbers the Quraishy Arabs, the Meccans, at Badr when they fought the Muslims from Medina? 1000 people, vs. Muslim's own 313. You know how many casualties, from both the Muslims side and the Quraishy side? A total of 84 killed, 14 from the Muslims and 70 from the Quraishy, and also 70 Quraishy imprisoned in the aftermath. I won't speak about the legitimacy of Islam to you, but if Islam's really a violent religion like you said, all those 1000 Quraishy should've died, slaughtered and butchered that day.
Now, I'm going to present Ibnu Katsir interpretation of that verse.
In other words, the Muslims must be strong in the hearts and souls, when facing their enemy in combat. It's a way for Allah to strike terror in the hearts of His enemies, by way of Muslims being strong when facing them.
Means what it means, and only doing it when you're at war, in battle, during combat. Another interpretation for ".....and strike off every fingertip of them." was also to strike at your enemy's hands/weapon if they happen to be heavily armored, thus difficult to behead/finish, so you can disarm them and made it easy for you to imprison them.
That verse was sent down in the Year 9 of Hijriah, which was the year Islam finally get hold of Mecca and the entirety of Arabian peninsula. It was a rule established in conjunction to the previous verse, where it was forbidden for the Quraishy who haven't accepted Islam, and other Pagan Arabs, from ever entering Mecca, due to their barbaric tradition when they pray at Ka'bah. It was also established as an answer to the hostility and harm done by what remain of the Pagan Arabs and the People of the Book (in this case, some of the Jews who lived at the Arabian Peninsula at the time). When they surrender and want to make peace, but didn't want to accept Islam, then they pay Jizya, which is basically a form of taxes for living in the land now ruled by the Muslim Arabs at the time.
You want a simple example that Islam is not what you think it is? Well, during the lives of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there's this blind Jewish beggar who lived his days, insulting and mocking the Prophet. In response, Muhammad himself fed the blind man everyday when the man is doing the badmouthing, and despite the blind Jew's words toward him, he fed him until his death.
Sometimes I don't even know where to start ...
First, it would be a huge problem in many democratic nations with a constitution where you can't just whiliy nilly discriminate a whole religion. A lot of constitutions would have to be changed and adjusted. And how do you make sure that the constitutions won't see more changes trough the we-need-to-protect-our-selfs-from-muslims backdoor? You can see in Turkey how that's working out for Erdogan, who used this coup for gaining more power. And it was how the Nazis managed to effectively silence any opposition in Germany as well - see the Reichstag fire. I don't want to wake up in 20 years, with the fear that Homosexuals might be hospitalized again.
Also, like I said earlier, not all Muslims are the same. You have Shia, Sunni, Alevism, Alawites and many more. Particularly the smaller religious groups suffer the most from Islamic fundametalism. See the situation of Alevism in Turkey, where it isn't even recognized as religion. Particularly in Syria Alawities are under immense preasure due to ISIS and the civil war. They are often the victim of both Assad and ISIS which follows the fundamentalist Wahhabi doctrine of Sunni Islam. Turning your back on ALL muslims, will mean more viollence, more torture and more beheadings.
Which brings us to the next problem. We did a very poor job when it comes to solving the problem of violent extremism and massacres in the past. Infact, you could say that western nations often directly or indirectly supported it. See the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq during the 1970s and 80 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 and 2003, the continious drone strikes where most victims are innocent people, see French and UK collonialism and interventions in the 1960s, 70s and 80s an the bombing of Syria and Lybia.
There is also no garantue how effective such a "temporary bann on Muslim immigrants" would be in reality. You most prpbably won't stop everyone. So terrorist attacks might still happen, while the innocent civilians are left to suffer and eventually to die.
It would stir up the Muslims that already live in said nations as well, dividing the communities even further, preventing families from renuions, leading to more radicalisation, blaming of muslims, increased xenphobia, more fear, and subsequently to more crimes and violence against immigrants and foreigners. Which also hits all sorts of groups, not only muslims, but jews (see Germany and the AfD) as well as non islamic groups like the Sikh.
Yes, yes I know it's a comedian again ... but that doesn't mean the Skih community in the US isn't experiencing real problems.
With such a bann you would also miss on many highly skilled, young and experienced workers who migrate to the west with the intention of working and living here. From engineers to scientists and normal workers. Even if they are a minority, they still have an impact on the economy.
There is also the question at which point you decide when and how to lift the temporary ban. How should it be done? At once? Or in steps? How do you decide at which point the Islam is peacefull?
There are simply to many open questions and uncertainities. Not to mention that it would have to be done in all European nations at the same time. But to follow such laws would be a lot more difficult for nations like Spain and Itally, or nations that are next to Turkey.
If this would really solve all the complex problems, I am pretty shure we would have done it by now.
Before I begin, I dont support a ban on Muslims. However, you have not answered my question.
I asked you how a temporary ban on Muslims entering a country would lead to segregation and concentration camps. Can you tell me?
Hospitalization beats being thrown off a rooftop by a long shot.
And that's assuming, for the sake of discussion, that there is an actually relevant western right-wing party even suggesting such a thing (hint - there isn't).
This is relevant:
Not openly, no. Well not yet. But in Serbia gays have been killed for example. That was in the 90s though, and things have improved somewhat. However, the AfD has now members in the parliament that openly scream to throw gays in prison. How far is it from prison to torture, or how some would call it treatment? And how far is it from there to camps? See, that's the problem here. None of us can look in to the future. And simply out of self preservation, I am the kind of guy who says better to be critical about it now.
Some of you guys are so keen on freedom and liberty, freedom of spech and all that. But you're pretty quick to give it away because of your concerns.
I don't know? If that is what you want to hear, well I don't have a magic crystal ball that tells me the exact future. But can you tell me with 100% certainty that it wouldn't eventually lead to segration in the distant future? What do you know how things will be in 20 or 40 years from now. Or that we won't see more laws, regulations and surveilance making it into our society? But as I already said, most constitutions would have a problem even with a temporary bann. Like the German one for example.
And if we now start to change our constitutions because of terrorists, then they have trully won.
Ah, so you're one of THOSE people. "Anyone who's religious shouldn't breed, hurdurhur". I hope you realize you wouldn't be here if this was a true statement. Of the 7 billion people currently residing on this planet, at least 6 billion are religious. You are the minority. With that statement right there saying Christians and Muslims are retarded, you just insulted nearly 4 billion of our planet's population. Congratulations. I think you're the one who shouldn't be breeding if you really believe the statement you just uttered.
How do alterations to a constitution in order to combat a prevalent terrorist threat show a terrorist victory? Us taking measures to prevent terrorism means the terrorists have won? I dont get it.
5.8 Billion out of 6.9 Billion to be precise.
Close enough to what I said. That's still 1.1 billion atheists/agnostics/etc VS 5.8 billion religious people. Either way, it's a completely stupid statement to make that anyone who's religious shouldn't breed. If all religious people were "retarded" then pretty much 90% of every single person you knew wouldn't be able to function in normal society.
Are you suggesting that we limit our political decision making to only include policies in which we can determine, with absolute certainty, the outcome? Because if so, you're asking for the system to come to a grinding halt.
It's really hard to tell what you are specifically arguing for.
If you happen to reply to this, please try and do so concisely.
No, I am saying that fear and agression is a very very bad advisor when it comes to political decisions of such weight. For anyone who's interested what fear can lead to, even reasonable concerns, I suggest to wach Thirteen Days, with Kevin Costner about the Cuban Missile Crysis. No one can deny that at the height of the cold war you had a lot of fear, concerns and a sense of aggression between the Warsaw Pakt and the NATO. Of which some was based on real concerns but also a lot on irrationality. Fog of War is another great documentary about it and how the MAD man theory came in effect. Point is, if people like Le May had it their way during the Missile Crisis, we most probably wouldn't be standing here and arguing about what ever if Islam is part of Europe or if there should be a ban on Muslims etc. What people realized very quickly after the cold war is that the Soviet union was not as evil as everyone thought. Despite the fact that it was a dictatorship. But the truth is often enough somewhere in the middle. And we should be simply careful with decisions that effect more us than the Muslims. Take the US for example. We are talking about a population that is making what? 1% of the nation? Even if there are dangers and concerns, we should keep a sense of proportionality.
Because they are not always made on logical arguments but rather feelings and emotions. We are living in democracies. Freedom of religion is one of the pillars it is build upon. And we have sworn on keeping Human rights, the Geneva convention and man other humanitarian values. If we close our borders completely to Muslims, even temporarily, we will prove the radical groups right, which say that something like this would happen and where the west is out there to destroy Islam.
And I am afraid, you won't stop terrorism by simply closing the borders. We're not in the castle age. Particularly when the sources of the problems we face are at least partially caused by our actions. I believe, we can do better. Particularly if we really believe in all the values that came out of the enlightement, we're so proud about.
Germany alone sold last year, twice as much weapons to some Arabian nations like the year before. Nations that took zero refugees and that we call our allies. And among the biggest weapon dealers, are France, UK and the US. Exactly those nations that also suffered and still experience terrorism and violence in the recent years. It's not far fetched to think that there is a connection. Particularly when you also consider the recent wars and interventions. I can only say it again, try just for a min (seriously!) to imagine a different situation, where for example Iran killed since 2001 100 000 American or European citizens! What would we do?
And we haven't even touched on the domestic issues, like failed immigration, poverity and many other social issues.
We are simply talking here about a highly complex issue of vast proportions. And I am afraid, there are no simple solutions.
A good muslim is a dead muslim. (Jean-Paul Sartre)