Immigration Poll

[Aquitaine]

I agree we shouldn't feel guilty about what our ancestors did but we, at the same time, should not complain about immigrants, in their hundreds or thousands arriving while we took over their lands in greater numbers. It's not a matter of guilt, it's a matter of decency, knowing our history and doing the right thing.

We shouldn't do the right thing just because we're afraid to feel guilty.

But "we" didn't take over their lands, our ancestors did. So our dead ancestors who engaged in imperialism have no right to complain, but we do. Forbidding - basically white - people from complaining about something they may not like is pretty minor, though it is still a (albeit soft) form of race-based retroactive collective punishment.

It would kinda be like saying modern day Japanese people have no right to complain about the ever-encroaching Chinese military buildup in the Pacific, because of the Nanking massacre and Unit 731.

 

[Acim]

Voted "mixed results."

Read p.1 of the thread before I posted. Understood poll as not willing to bring up illegal immigration, so do feel my response makes sense.

I don't see the topic as taboo. If it's legal immigration as topic, I don't see how it could plausibly be taboo other than from a politically correct viewpoint that would be interesting to witness to, and I would think insanely easy to defeat.

I'm not aware of a situation (includes all fictional works I'm familiar with) where immigration wasn't portrayed, at some point, as having mixed results. Mixed results strikes me as being able to see immigration, at times, as a very good thing and, at other times, as a very bad thing. During a time of war in any nation, I would think immigration would be seen as a thing that ought to be reduced, especially if part of the ongoing war is acts of terrorism. If the people that negatively view that type of policy are a) pro-immigration, b) politically correct and c) a little irrational, or liberal (ha!), then surely they could understand it as a temporary measure. I imagine for political gain, they'd make every possible attempt to portray it as something that those calling for reduction are wanting this to be permanent because they hate foreigners. Or some nonsense like that.

 

[icehorse]

ISIS isn't really on a strong ground, actually they are on a no ground at all. And "timeless perfection" is not the problem. The problem is something you were advising and promoting, that is cherry picking from the Quraan. What ISIS does is taking two words of a set of verses and putting them outside their context. Let me provide you with an example.

I would say that if we managed to arrange a debate between you and ISIS's leaders concerning the true nature of Islam, they would clean your clock. So here we have you claiming that YOU know how to interpret Islam better than all of ISIS's leaders put together. Why on earth should we believe you?

 

[Sabour]

I would say that if we managed to arrange a debate between you and ISIS's leaders concerning the true nature of Islam, they would clean your clock. So here we have you claiming that YOU know how to interpret Islam better than all of ISIS's leaders put together. Why on earth should we believe you?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Sabour,

I'm sure you're aware that Muslims have been at war with each other since soon after Islam was founded. Are you hoping that the rest of us don't know that? Put another way, in the long view of history, ISIS is not going to stand out as un-Islamic... at all!

 

[Gharib]

Salaam,

I'm not so sure. And whilst they are no saints, the PKK are hardly the same as IS.

Wassalaam

I didn't say they are the same. But they are driven by outside influence. They finally made a peace deal and someone who is honest enough to accept it should work hard to maintain it, not amass weapons secretly and then break the peace.

It was on the news that after the Nov 1 election many Kurd's from the southern districts spoke out saying they would have voted for the AK party had the PKK militants not threatened them. They are happy, obviously not all, that Turkey has finally decided to exterminate them from the southern districts.

 

[Sabour]

Hey Icehorse

You never fail to amaze me with your responses. You always fail to put together an argument and whenever someone provides you with an explanation, you jump to another topic and start throwing unsupported claims, to say the least.

See how you switched from talking about the nature of islam to what muslims do throughout your responses after you have been provided with an answer.

arrange a debate between you and ISIS's leaders concerning the true nature of Islam

When I answered about ISIS bombing muslims,

You said

I'm sure you're aware that Muslims have been at war with each other since soon after Islam was founded. Are you hoping that the rest of us don't know that? Put another way, in the long view of history, ISIS is not going to stand out as un-Islamic... at all!

For the sake of argument, and because I know that the argument would be pointless, let us assume that muslims were in fact in a continuous war between them. The real question has to be of whether this is islamic or not.

Here are verses from the Quraan.

5:32

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

4:93

But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.


So to say that ISIS is not going to stand out as un islamic is again a very ignorant statement to make. I have seen you continuously claiming that you are trying to understand Islam. The fact is, you have already made your mind on the nature Islam and refuse to reflect on that which is obvious.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Sabour,

It seems clear from countless debates right here on RF that not even Muslims agree on how to interpret Islamic scripture. Since that's the case, it strikes me that the best way to understand Islam is to study the actions of those who claim to follow it. You pull a few verses out of the Quran as if it proves your point. It doesn't. It never does. Because the next apologist will disagree. Or if I pull a few verses out of the Quran, I'll be told I've misinterpreted them. There is no official authority in Islam. The million different interpretations are all hat and no cattle. It's all just theory. What we CAN learn about Islam is in what it's adherents believe and how they act.

And for this round... you're the one who put up a quote from well known Islamic scholar Xeni Jardin. I was simply responding to the post YOU made.

p.s. You understand of course that Xeni Jardin is NOT a well known Islamic scholar, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ISIS is not going to stand out as un-Islamic... at all!

I've read and heard many Muslims denounce them as anti-Islamic. I've even read statements from various Islamic scholars who have pointed out every Islamic law that ISIS has violated.

There is no official authority in Islam. The million different interpretations are all hat and no cattle. It's all just theory.

That sums up pretty much every ideology ever. Such as Marxism, where we can find people like Stalin claiming it, while those such as Trotsky say the Leninist-Marxist approach is a deviation from Marxism. We can read John Locke who said under Capitalism that private ownership should leave no one with less than they had under communal ownership, while those such as Nozick promote Capitalism as a system of dog-eat-dog. Protestants have their own interpretation of the Bible, Catholics have their own, and Baptists will slam their fists on the pulpit claiming everyone who isn't a Baptist is going to Hell.

 

[Sabour]

Hey Icehorse,

I remember at times at school we used to read stories in class and than have tests about the story. The teacher would put like 10 questions and give us one hour to answer. After this, she grades our papers. Many answers the students would provide were clearly wrong. You know, most of the narratives and information and story are clear and there is no room for individual interpretation. Seems if you were the teacher, you would have given all the students full marks because you believe that they are answering from their interpretation of things. You would have been a very bad teacher !

This is because you are stating that 1+1=2 can be interpreted as 1+1=4, because not all people agree on it.

As a start, I advise you to learn about explicit statements and implicit statements. This would make your life easier.

About Xeni Jardin, I don't think she is a muslim and I didn't look into it in the first place. I was simply quoting something for a random person who I agree with on this particular point.

 

[icehorse]

Well Sabour,

I thought that as well. But after many debates with Muslims, it turns out that depending on this or that sometimes in the Quran 1+1 = 2, sometimes 1+1 = 3, and sometimes 1+1 = 37. Go figure.

 

[icehorse]

I've read and heard many Muslims denounce them as anti-Islamic. I've even read statements from various Islamic scholars who have pointed out every Islamic law that ISIS has violated.

That sums up pretty much every ideology ever. Such as Marxism, where we can find people like Stalin claiming it, while those such as Trotsky say the Leninist-Marxist approach is a deviation from Marxism. We can read John Locke who said under Capitalism that private ownership should leave no one with less than they had under communal ownership, while those such as Nozick promote Capitalism as a system of dog-eat-dog. Protestants have their own interpretation of the Bible, Catholics have their own, and Baptists will slam their fists on the pulpit claiming everyone who isn't a Baptist is going to Hell.

It's absolutely the case that many Muslim scholars denounce ISIS. No argument there. But there's also no denying that ISIS's take on Islam is parsimonious and they can point to a lot of precedence. Once again, I think ISIS's scholars would fare quite well in debate.

 

[Sabour]

Well Sabour,

I thought that as well. But after many debates with Muslims, it turns out that depending on this or that sometimes in the Quran 1+1 = 2, sometimes 1+1 = 3, and sometimes 1+1 = 37. Go figure.

Regardless of the nature, the Quraan is still a book ........

Let me say that I am satisfied with your reply because I can see that you understood what I was trying to highlight.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is up to you of course.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's absolutely the case that many Muslim scholars denounce ISIS. No argument there. But there's also no denying that ISIS's take on Islam is parsimonious and they can point to a lot of precedence. Once again, I think ISIS's scholars would fare quite well in debate.

I agree on parsimonious, but they barely have precedence given Wahhabi has hardly ever been the "common Muslim" take on Islam. It's official in Saudi Arabia, and groups like ISIS, the Taliban, and Boko Haram take to it, but not even the Ottoman Empire could compare to the brutality and ultra-deep-conservativism that these lunatics claim as being "the true interpretation" of Islam. The Ottoman Turks weren't exactly great or kind when they conquered and waged war (and we can gauge their cruelty given the Romanian warlord Vlad Dracul III learned his ways of brutality from them), but images of Muhammad and being a Christian or Jew wasn't a death sentence according to their laws (they were actually fairly progressive for their time). And they even advanced mathematics, science, medicine, and education during that time, and they had no problems with putting the ancient Greeks on a pedestal like Western society has done since the ancient Greeks were nothing more than pages in history and philosophy books (Even Iran in the early-to-mid 20th century before the Islamic Revolution adhered to various Greek teachings).
Wahhabi is so fringe outside of the few that practice it that I doubt the Muslim scholars who support it could do well in a debate, especially considering that Muslims are supposed to follow the teachings of the prophets before Muhammad, including Jesus, who did not teach such ways of intolerance and violence. Ultimately everyone points to this verse and that, but I think it's safe to say that in the long run ISIS and Saudi Arabia will be the death of Wahhabi.

 

[icehorse]

I agree on parsimonious, but they barely have precedence...

Let's get even more parsimonious. Islam makes two foundational claims:

1 - The Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god.
2 - Muhammad was the perfect role model of a human being.

All you have to do is study even the most apologetic biography of Muhammad to see how easily ISIS can defend its actions.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Let's get even more parsimonious. Islam makes two foundational claims:

1 - The Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god.
2 - Muhammad was the perfect role model of a human being.

As I think I've said before, it is not really Islaam that makes these (or any other) claims. Rather it is (some/many) Muslims, with their own (or their leaders') versions of what Islaam is.

 

[icehorse]

As I think I've said before, it is not really Islaam that makes these (or any other) claims. Rather it is (some/many) Muslims, with their own (or their leaders') versions of what Islaam is.

I recall that. So in your version are there any foundational claims?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's get even more parsimonious. Islam makes two foundational claims:

1 - The Quran is the perfect, timeless, unalterable word of god.
2 - Muhammad was the perfect role model of a human being.

All you have to do is study even the most apologetic biography of Muhammad to see how easily ISIS can defend its actions.

Lot's of Christians say the exact same thing about the Bible and Jesus, but yet those who promote violence in the name of Christianity, even though being able to point to their verses and stuff like any other Christian, really can't do well in debate because the vast majority of Christians just do not agree with such things. It's no different with Islam. And one thing people just are not talking about is that where we typically find violent Muslims are the same places we typically find violent Christians, which are places plagued with social, political, and economic instability, which is a known recipe for turning places into breeding grounds of radicalism, violence, and terrorism.

 

[icehorse]

...because the vast majority of Christians just do not agree with such things...

And I think that that might be one big difference. In addition, it's far more risky for a Muslim to disagree.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I didn't say they are the same. But they are driven by outside influence. They finally made a peace deal and someone who is honest enough to accept it should work hard to maintain it, not amass weapons secretly and then break the peace.

It was on the news that after the Nov 1 election many Kurd's from the southern districts spoke out saying they would have voted for the AK party had the PKK militants not threatened them. They are happy, obviously not all, that Turkey has finally decided to exterminate them from the southern districts.

I think most are just tired of all the fighting and want to be able to live their lives as they see fit in peace.