Why doesn't Islam prevent refugees?

[Smart_Guy]

Well, if every single Muslim country has a refugee problem that counts as a real problem, then maybe we can consider that Islam is the cause.

But anyway, I believe the question is wrong. Why "doesn't" Islam prevent, is a wrong question. Right questions would be if Islam tells to do something. Islam doesn't just prevent things at random or according to our liking.

 

[FearGod]

In a report on refugees out today it noted that "At the end of last year, more than half of all refugees were from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia." All three of these countries have Muslim majorities. The question I would pose is not why Islam would cause the refugees in these countries. Instead, I would ask why did Islam's influence not prevent these population unheavals. In other words, if Islam comes from Allah, why wouldn't He do something to prevent this suffering?

God's plan and for a purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God's plan and for a purpose.

And you think God couldn't have achieved his purpose without making people suffer as refugees?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

1. Many, if not most of the recent Muslim refugees are the result of wars betweeb sunni and shi'ite, or extreme islamic groups like isis.
2. rather fewer are the result of wars between the west and islamic states.

 

[Smart_Guy]

1. Many, if not most of the recent Muslim refugees are the result of wars betweeb sunni and shi'ite, or extreme islamic groups like isis.
2. rather fewer are the result of wars between the west and islamic states.

Some controversies have it that the West is who some created those extremest groups and the internal conflicts there with their presence. Could that mean the West is originally behind it?

 

[jeager106]

Of course they have to accept the refuges as their responsibility since Christians invade Islam lands constantly.

Cite examples please.

 

[jeager106]

Some controversies have it that the West is who some created those extremest groups and the internal conflicts there with their presence. Could that mean the West is originally behind it?

Cite examples please.

 

[jeager106]

1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.
After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

We could go on and on and on bickering which religious dogma was worse than
another but Islam is anything but the Religion of Peace.
Never was, isn't now.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Cite examples please.

You mean examples for those controversies? They are all over the internet and social media. A simple Google search gave this:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/4-minutes-cbs-news-anchor-explains-created-isis/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/04/opinions/bergen-trump-obama-clinton-creation-of-isis/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-02/isis-enemy-us-created-armed-funded

Let alone random discussion here on RF that extremists are formed as retaliation to the US army's interference in the Middle East like in Iraq.

As I said, those are controversies. They are not to confirm any thing. It is nothing to convict the West, and as you know, the suspect is innocent until proven guilty. But it does not mean beaing off the hook too.

 

[uncung]

Cite examples please.

what are the religion of U.S. armies?

 

[uncung]

1,400 Years of Christian/Islamic Struggle: An Analysis

I was very disappointed to see that U.S. News would publish a clearly false article, adopting the world's clearly false, politically correct (PC) view of the place of the Crusades in history. What makes it even worse, the article hides its views under the additional headline falsehood, "The Truth About the Epic Clash Between Christianity and Islam."

Let me explain.

The opening heading states, "During the Crusades, East and West first met." This is just totally in error, as any person with the slightest knowledge of history well knows. East and West had been fighting for at least 1,500 years before the first Crusade.

To give just a few examples -- the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C. The Greek, Alexander the Great, attempted to conquer all of Asia, as far as India, in the fourth century B.C. Both the Persians of the east and the Greeks of the west set up colonial empires founded upon bloody military conquest. The Romans established by bloody military conquest colonies in Mesopotamia, northwestern Arabia, and Assyria in the second century A.D.

A different type of bloody conquest occurred through the movement of whole tribal groups between the east and the west. Again, just to name a few, the Huns, the Goths, and the Avars came from as far away as western Asia, central Asia, and China respectively in the fifth through the seventh centuries A.D. Indeed, the Avars from northern China and Mongolia were besieging Constantinople in 626 A.D., at the very moment Mohammed was a merchant in Arabia. Indeed, the Avars, by this siege, were one of the forces that weakened the Byzantines (there were many other, perhaps more important, forces) to the extent that most of the Byzantine mid-eastern empire fell relatively easily to the Muslims.

But let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also totally false.
After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day.

We could go on and on and on bickering which religious dogma was worse than
another but Islam is anything but the Religion of Peace.
Never was, isn't now.

It was the fault of Christians.

 

[HonestJoe]

In other words, if Islam comes from Allah, why wouldn't He do something to prevent this suffering?

Isn’t someone Jewish on somewhat shaky ground talking about a religions god not preventing terrible things happening to its followers?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some controversies have it that the West is who some created those extremest groups and the internal conflicts there with their presence. Could that mean the West is originally behind it?

The west might have exacerbated the unrest, but the differences are islamic. And the killing between them is faith based.

There is nothing new at all in this sectarian fighting and emnety.

 

[Smart_Guy]

The west might have exacerbated the unrest, but the differences are islamic. And the killing between them is faith based.

There is nothing new at all in this sectarian fighting and emnety.

I agree.

The thing is, when Saddam Husain was in charge, internal sectarian conflicts were so unnoticed in Iraq. With his removal after becoming really crazy due to unknown reasons (the removal necessary in his last days) all of these sectarian conflicts started coming out in crazy amounts. It is true the conflict is older than that, but to have it irrupt in Iraq like that in the modern days is relatively new.

That's what I conclude, and I could be wrong.

 

[Sabour]

One aspect I am curious about is how so many refugees could exist in light of Islam's attitude on charity. As is well known, giving alms and helping the poor is a pillar of Islam ("zakkat"). Does Allah allow so many refugees in order to test how Muslims will demonstrate charity? If so, what judgement should the world make on how well Muslims achieve this aspiration of their religion?

Zakat is one of the pillars of Islam meaning that every muslim should give 2.5% of his zakat to people. I think there are 8 kinds of people who are entitled to be given Zakat. Zakat is a pillar, not to be confused with "Sadaka". Sadaka is also giving money or food or clothes, but it is not a must for every muslim, it is something that would give extra rewards.

Unfortunately, I have seen very very few muslims paying Zakat in my area and I think it is the same in the most countries. Not all called muslims are practicing Islam.

God created the world to work in a certain way. There is a cause effect. Our actions and other people actions have consequences. There is a trillion variable in the area other than religion. We can't just expect that because people are on Islam and following the right religion that there will be no more suffering and the other stuff will be trivial.

I don't know why people get the notion that if one is following the right religion and worshiping the right God, suffering would disappear. That is not the case. Although he will be in peace with himself and grateful to Allah, he may still struggle in the material life.

Following the right religion doesn't mean that the suffering will magically disappear. But however, these suffering may become trivial to individuals. That is why you may see a person having everything he ever wanted and yet he is unhappy and commits suicide at the end, and a person who is having a harsh life, yet still smiles and he is thankful for what he has and he lives in peace with himself.

 

[FearGod]

And you think God couldn't have achieved his purpose without making people suffer as refugees?

It can and still will be God's plan.

Do you think it's nice that God promised that the Jews will conquer Jerusalem and will beat
his believers? But it should happen whether we like it or not

You can resist and work against God's plans if you wish.

 

[jeager106]

what are the religion of U.S. armies?

I don't know?
Enlighten me with some stats please?

U.S. Army? How about Fort Hood? That "army" enough for ya?

Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan is charged in the deadly 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas.

Maj. Nidal Hasan, an American-born Muslim, faces the death penalty.....
killed 13 and wounded dozens more UNARMED military personnel.

The Religion of Peace?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can and still will be God's plan.

Do you think it's nice that God promised that the Jews will conquer Jerusalem and will beat
his believers? But it should happen whether we like it or not

You can resist and work against God's plans if you wish.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Shaul]

Does your God not have a pretty good track record of producing refugees? Right back to the time of Moses in fact.

You actually celebrate this, don't you?

Unfortunately, that was far from the the last time Jewish people had to seek refuge either, as you should well know.

Most people have sympathy, rather than engage is shallow point scoring exercises...

The Bible doesn't have a track record of producing refugees. Quite the reverse, with one notable exception. The Bible is clear that the Jews would be refugees for a very long time between the Second and Third Temples. Which is exactly what we see happening now. The Jews have been refugees for some two thousand years. But the reason is also provide. It is so the Jews will be the world's scapegoats and then receive a double portion of blessings in the end times. As a people that have been refugees ourselves for millennia we are keen of the sufferings of refugees.

I don't celebrate that others are refugees. Don't be insulting. Furthermore I am not "point scoring" as you so crassly put it. The idea never occurred to me, as it did to you. I am trying to seek out how we can learn from these tragedies. If you have other purposes keep them for yourself and don't try to project them unto others.

 

[Shaul]

God's plan and for a purpose.

Yes, please. That is what I am after here. What is His plan? How can we understand that plan better and so be able to align our plans and ways with His?