Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is it time Europe bans Islam & muslim immigration? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    remember terrorism does not represent any religion it's really unfortunate and sad that this is happening and things like this are just making the image of Muslim people around the world worse and worse. but let's say they do so what if someone lies that they are not Muslim in order to get in then ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    its so sad that those terrorists are really spoiling the name and good people who follow islam

    just reading this thread most people think muslims are terrorists etc....and basically want them gone from west. Scary times ahead sadly.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Syrians/levants aren't even originally Arabs,but that's another story :rofl:

    I'm a British Arab/British Italian
    The point is that you aren't Syrian.

    One of your parents was, so what? It's like these Americans going I'm Dutch Irish...

    Being a nationality is a geographical fact and a set of ideals


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The point is that you aren't Syrian.

    One of your parents was, so what? It's like these Americans going I'm Dutch Irish...

    Being a nationality is a geographical fact and a set of ideals


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What are you even on about. Ofcourse I am,it's my heritage. I follow the culture and speak the language,I don't have to be born there. All my maternal ancestors are from there. That's more than enough
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pereira325)
    Do i really have to say it out that not all muslims/followers are terrorists??
    Feel free to say something less stupid.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What are you even on about. Ofcourse I am,it's my heritage. I follow the culture and speak the language,I don't have to be born there. All my maternal ancestors are from there. That's more than enough
    LOL

    So by that rational i am Irish because both my maternal grandparents were born in Ireland.
    Why not go further and say I'm a Celt, an angle or Saxon.

    Complete piss take

    I follow some black culture too, I'm black now as well

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stewiee)
    how did we so quickly decipher it was an attack by 'muslims'? ive checked the news on several sites and not a single assertion of the sort.
    Let me think... What group of people are known for shouting Allahu Akbar before blowing themselves up after gunning people down? It must have been the Buddhists. Retard.

    (Original post by pereira325)
    OP YOU ARE RACIST.I am quite far right wing in my own thinking, but this is clearly an unfeasable idea which has no moral justification.Do i really have to say it out that not all muslims/followers are terrorists??You are despicable.(I am not a muslim myself)

    >I am far right wing!!
    >I use words like "Racist" without irony!!

    Red flag right there. In more ways than one, you damned commie carebear.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    LOL

    So by that rational i am Irish because both my maternal grandparents were born in Ireland.
    Why not go further and say I'm a Celt, an angle or Saxon.

    Complete piss take

    I follow some black culture too, I'm black now as well

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then you're Irish.
    Syria is my heritage,I can trace my ancestors to that part of the world and everyone on my mother's side is from there so I don't know why you're confused. Quite simple really. I'm British born an of Syrian descent,end of!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    so all you people with problems with islam...? are you going to keep away from muslims in college? Abuse ladies wearing hijab's in the street? What are you going to do to these muslims?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Then you're Irish.
    Syria is my heritage,I can trace my ancestors to that part of the world and everyone on my mother's side is from there so I don't know why you're confused. Quite simple really. I'm British born an of Syrian descent,end of!
    I'm not Irish though that's the point, God you're dense.

    The geographical location of someone's bloodline is irrelevant


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    You're getting ahead of yourself,nobody said you had an issue with Muslims I'm just pointing out to you that not all migrants coming here are Muslims although the majority are.
    I'm merely nipping that inevitable argument in the bud as soon as possible. It's only an inevitability before someone twists my words and completely distorts my intention of meaning.
    Their geographical location is also irrelevant, I'd be saying the same even if they were from America or the Ukraine. No one should be able to pass through a border without a paper trail.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nobody knows the whole truth. There are many PLANNED activities around the world that naiive people think are random. We should look at many perspectives and not just the media's, who are CONTROLLING what goes out carefully. The media is owned by certain people with certain agendas who's aim is to brainwash us into believing that all muslims are terrorists... etc so that there may be a massacre of muslims in Europe. Don' t think that just because we are modern in the 21st century that this cant happen, at this rate it definitely will, By the way guys ISIS are imposters, they are NOT muslims for crying out loud (sorry about the rant)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by areej218)
    i can relate to y many of u hate Muslims by now
    I don’t know that all that many reasonable/educated (never mind good Christian) people “hate” Muslims. To take myself as an example: I am wary of Muslims but don’t hate them, far from it – indeed I have Muslim friends, colleagues, and clients. I do recognise, however, that large scale inter-civilisational immigration is simply unsustainable* where Muslims are concerned/that the general public are finally starting to cotton on to this, having woken up to the reality that multiculturalism is a fallacy, and hence I also fear for the safety/security of Muslims and their sympathisers. * Unustainable owing to a range of (interlinked) factors, principally including, to my mind:

    • Fundamentally incompatible religious, and (associated) ethno-cultural, commandments/values/norms
    • The fervent and dogmatic adherence to related tenets displayed by the majority of Muslims
    • Xenophobia and/or a divisive/inhumane ‘them and us’ attitude displayed on both sides (discrimination, segregation, alienation, predation etc)
    • Disparate language, lands, heritage, icons, and stages of ideological evolution (pre-reformation – religious vs. post-enlightenment – secular, clash)
    • The historic record (see Al-Andalus, and various subsequent flashpoints between Islam and other cultures around the world, for reference)

    imagine ur on a peaceful religion like islam and .. then .. everyone .. starts blaming u as a Muslim
    As I’ve said before, innocent/moderate Muslims caught up in the crossfire certainly have my sympathy, but they too have been hoodwinked regarding the possibility that multicultural system involving Muslims can be sustained outside of the Muslim world e.g. that somehow the following is compatible

    British values, we're constantly told, are chiefly tolerance and diversity: “We welcome, value and tolerate thee”

    vs.

    Islam literally means, and nevertheless entails, absolute submission: “I am one of God’s chosen people and you will join, or else submit, to me”

    U really need to look at this from a wider angle
    As you’ll note from the above, plus my original post, I’ve examined an array of pressing issues with Islam from a pretty wide angle (see bulleted points in both posts)

    (Original post by muffingg)
    I challenge anyone out there to provide me with any references from the Qur'an that promote the killing of innocent lives!
    (Original post by YA98)
    the verse you posted .. was lesser Jihad which means to defend Islam and only use force when necessary
    The problem is that particular blends of ethno-culture, which ride on the back of particular interpretations of Islamic doctrine, enable very nasty people to identify pretty much anyone they like as 'kafir', aggressors against Islam, or, heaven forbid, apostates, and hence slaughter them and call it the will of Allah

    Don't kill those who surrender + Don't kill those who run away
    We must submit/surrender, in our own countries, or else run away in order to avoid being blown to bits in our streets

    Don't enforce Islam
    “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them” + “fight those who believe not in Allah”

    (Original post by areej218)
    So Allah made everyone so that they could kill each other
    Nope, according to Islam so that Muslims could pretty much either kill or convert (forcibly or otherwise) everyone else: ‘..fight them until there is no more (disbelief)’ + “fight them until .. religion be only for Allah”

    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    Protesting against terrorists?
    Protesting against acts of terrorism committed in the name of your people/religion*

    Do you honestly think that will work?
    I expect that if every noteworthy leader/opnion maker/activist in the Muslim world did so then yes, it would likely have an impact

    Do you think they will sit down and take notes on how to become 'normal' and not a 'terrorist'?
    Excepting a minority of sociopaths, no-one is born a terrorist, son

    implying that European lives are more important than others?
    Governments are elected to serve the interests of their constituents first and foremost, and to protect human life and dignity in other parts of the world secondarily. If the domestic population lose faith in the desire/capacity of leaders/authorities to serve and protect them, and come to believe that they are being sacrificed (as they are), then history suggests that they will rise up/the far right will take hold, and then things will get really bad for everyone (including and especially migrants)

    it's okay if Muslims get killed off?
    Where on earth are you getting this from?

    People don't run away to Europe to intentionally bring these terrorists with them
    Most newcomers indeed do not, but they nevertheless represent a security threat as a group by virtue of the nasties who are able to use them as cover to infiltrate – as I have warned in the past and as has been seen time and again throughout human history, from the Trojan horse of Troy through to the Syrian refugees involved in the latest Parisian atrocity

    if you're going to blame Muslims for bringing 'terrorism' with them
    Please quote me where I have blamed all Muslims, or all Muslim refugees, for anything. Thanks

    shouldn't we blame the US & UK for the invasion of Iraq in 2003
    Those parliamentarians who voted for the invasion of Iraq are somewhat responsible for the problems that have occurred in the region since 2003, for sure. However, it is important to remember that many were led to believe that there was a credible WMD threat, and given Saddam’s record with international law, sovereign territory, and clandestine attacks (including genocide against his own people), and the not completely unreasonable assumption that military/political planners would plan for the peace, one cannot be too damning of their support

    Given the millions who protested that action in the UK at that time I’m also not sure that it’s very sound to blame the wider public, although we should all of course acknowledge/express our sorrow and regret that mistakes were made, in our name, and that great dealth/destruction/suffering was brought upon the peoples of that region because of the actions of those we elect to serve us

    the fundamental reason radical islamism today?
    War with Iraq is certainly a part of it, but then so too is Afghanistan, and you may argue that neither campaigns would have occurred were it not for the actions of Osama and Saddam, or the interference/partial orchestration (or at least complicity) of the Saudis. It’s a complex topic but, whatever the truth, whoever is (partially) responsible, we have to deal with practical realities under present conditions. We must secure, protect and improve our society, reject retrograde values, and stand up to abuse, oppression, threats, and attacks. We, the people of Great Britain, reject Islamism and are starting to wake up to the fact that we will ultimately need to expunge it from our lands, or else fall under its yoke, in order to have lasting peace and harmony

    (Original post by areej218)
    The only reason y Allah made religion was because he wanted us to abide by some rules that made our lives easier and peaceful
    According to history, Islamic doctrine was shaped in order to rally and maintain support for a group of outcast/oppressed roving bandits. All religions are moralistic codes, invented by ‘prophets’ (wise mortals) to order and control human behaviour, usually so as to bring it line with the will of particular institutional leadership – including the desirable preservation of peaceful relations (within the ‘us’ group [of ‘chosen’ people] at least)

    (Original post by Observatory)
    On the other hand we did not have three million questionably British Nazis at that time and the donkeys were not quite as lame as they have become. Then as now there was a desire not to see what should have been obvious, because the fantasy was more comforting. The result was a catastrophe that could and should have been avoided - a catastrophe that was far greater for our opponents than for us
    The Nazis: A Warning from History. As noted, my understanding of history, international relations, current affairs, and social psychology have led me to the same essential comparative prophecy

    (Original post by z0zza)
    stop using the actions of a few to justify the hatred for many
    (Original post by z0zza)
    where is the proof of these thoughts?
    (Original post by Xavier617)
    the more we judge the whole on the actions of 1 or 2
    (Original post by ForgetMe)
    why do you judge the majority by minority's actions?
    (Original post by StudentInSociety)
    They're not Muslim
    (Original post by pereira325)
    not all Muslims are terrorists
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Not everybody supports ISIS
    (Original post by BGreen123)
    it is the extremists forget Islam as the issue
    (Original post by farha11033)
    terrorism does not represent any religion
    (Original post by Ammat)
    ISIS are NOT Muslims
    Not about hatred, nor about the actions of a few – the many atrocities committed by Muslims/in the name of Islam are not just a concern taken in isolation but also, perhaps more troublingly, emblematic of broader problems taken in the round; relatedly, regarding “proof” – FYR, see the statistics provided in my original post

    (Original post by z0zza)
    the venemous attitudes, stemming from a 'them vs us' mentality, is only going to worsen the situation
    Correct, and unfortunately the 'them and us' has it's roots in the distinction with/subordination of the 'kafir' of the Koran. Please wake up

    (Original post by z0zza)
    if Muslims were a significant threat, there is billion+ of them we would be dead/living in a warzone
    When the chips are down the Muslim communities of the West will, inexorably, become an increasing threat in actuality, owing to the features I have outlined. We may not see billions of them war with us ever (inshallah) but to underestimate the potential for civil unrest, domestic insurgency, and race/religious war would be a grave error

    (Original post by kunoichi)
    getting them registered and actually knowing who was where, rather than letting people roam might have been a good plan
    For sure, but that is of course never going to be enough in itself to ensure that emigrants integrate/never pose a threat

    (Original post by Celiabrookes)
    David Cameron just wanted to get so many refugees in to beat the other countries or something
    Credit to the Conservatives, the GovT opted only to take the most vulnerable refugees registered at UN camps, further to relevant security checks but, as above, this still offers no complete guarantees

    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    Muslims would not be capable if beating anyone in a war
    The Viet Cong managed to defeat the most powerful superpower in the world, in an age of great military spending and relatively limited/muteable public outrage at massive Western casualties. Islamists are better at asymmetric warfare and insurgency, better organised, better funded, better at political propaganda, have billions of potential recruits to draw on, and are even more brutal/fanatical. Another lesson from history: never underestimate your enemy

    it's dangerous because even your next door neighbour could be plotting attacks and waiting until the right time
    This is a little OTT alarmist but it is precisely this sentiment that leads me to predict that the days of Western multiculturalism are numbered. People cannot (nor should they be expected to) live in a perpetual state of distrust, division, and fear, and if things don’t improve, and quickly, that is where we are headed

    Muslims do not want to integrate, they are here to cause trouble and nothing else
    Careful not to tar them all with the same brush, some are decent folks who make every effort to integrate, fit in, and contribute to a healthy and harmonious society

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    So you would rather they stayed in Syria and be killed
    Nope. I have never, nor would I ever, suggest that people fleeing conflict and persecution should do anything other than seek to preserve the wellbeing of their families. What I have said is that such people should (also) be encouraged/empowered to resolve societal issues at home first and foremost, wherever possible, or else be absorbed by neighbouring, if not then intra-regional, or at least intra-civilisational systems. Anything else is counterproductive in terms of conditions on the ground in those societies (youth/brain/moderate/reformist/dynamism drain) and healthy international, and inter-civilisational, relations. Exporting human suffering and security threats helps no-one, long term

    Spoiler:
    Show
    As for you personally, you are a half Levantine, Christian, girl, born in the UK, who has never experienced extreme violence or been exposed to extremist groups, with demonstrably congruent (suitably dignified/progressive) values, a British passport, a reputable British sponsor (me/my family), a biomed degree, and considerable investiture in our society (material and otherwise). Few people in their right mind would draw a comparison between you and a refugee-bomber

    we face this kind of atrocity on a daily basis in the ME
    Indeed so, but that does not make the Parisian atrocities a reasonable price to pay I’m afraid. That the Middle East has major problems is regrettable, and we must do what we can to support peace in the region, but hopefully you will agree: not at the cost of sacrificing our own safety, security, society, and way of life

    the majority of refugees are fleeing from ISIS and people want us to deny them that?
    No-one would deny them the right to flee from ISIS, but we would encourage them to fight, and have been supporting them in fighting, their persecutors, and will, I'm afraid, deny them the right to flee as far as Europe, and the UK, as it is totally unnecessary and places us all (migrants included) at risk. If you do not understand why then please take the time to carefully read this post, and the post it links to, in their entirety – I have explained it quite clearly, and it is plainly irrefutable, however much we may wish it were not the case

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Get out of the Middle East In that case and let us handle our own business
    You’re being hypocritical I'm afraid. I distinctly recall you calling for the West to do more about the situation in Syria. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. You see, the West can’t win in the court of Middle Eastern opinion so it looks likely that it is indeed best off disengaging and reverting to exclusive isolationism

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    when the next school shoot out happens in an American school or university are you going to apologise on behave of the White kid that did it and take responsibility?
    No-one sensible would seriously expect every Muslim to apologise, but we would expect them to do as we do when memebrs of our community commit outrages e.g. try to understand, and address, the motivations behind the attack, and to prevent such things from happening in future. That's all we expect of Muslims really, a degree of soul searching, cooperation, and vigilance that we have never really see take place adequately, across the board

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Why are they no bombing China or all these other places?
    List of Islamist terrorist attacks - scroll down and let the flags be your guide, unfortunately you are gravely misinformed if you believe that militant Islamists only target the West. Please for the love of God wake up woman, you're supposed to be a humanitarian lady of (intellectual) integrity and sound judgement :erm:

    (Original post by BGreen123)
    Blair and Bush should be trailed for war crimes. The west is partly to blame for the grow of 'ISIS' no question
    That's the sum of your response to the latest Parisian Muslim attrocity/your solution to the questions/fear these attacks raise? :lolwut:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I'm not Irish though that's the point, God you're dense.

    The geographical location of someone's bloodline is irrelevant


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay,I don't want to get tension headaches so I'll just stop
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    do you think muslims in the uk will start getting attacked on the street now because of what has happened
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    Just look at the Palestinians. If it wasn't for Iron Dome there would be so many innocent Israelis dead. Hundreds of thousands would be dead if those missiles reached their targets (including Tel Aviv airport) and the Palestinians wouldn't even care, they support it. While Israel )and western countries) do as much as possible to avoid killing civilians.

    But the majority of people sticking up for these people have very low IQs so they don't understand these things. They only look at numbers and what the media tells them.
    I get your anger but you sound really bigoted right now. That's not the way to go about it. The funny thing is that your view is more of what the media would say than us people with "low IQs". Your sort of standpoint is the sort that would bring a Palestinian-like conflict to our shores, and like the attack in Paris. You're waving a red flag to the bull, further encouraging the marginalisation of the innocent, and literally DRIVING them into the arms of these terrorist groups.

    I think we defo need tighter boarder control and more ways of being able to identify migrants from their places of origin. Then (if money and resources were indispensable), I'd call for the mental assessments of people coming in to make sure that they're healthy and not radicalised. Maybe with this we can filter out the people who could be dangerous from actual innocent migrants. There also needs to be a VISIBLE collaboration with UK Muslim leaders, foreign Muslim leaders, and influential PMs and Presidents like Hollande, Cameron and Merkel appealing to Muslims to stop the conflict.

    THESE are the sort of resolutions we should be making, not "let's kick them all out and close our boarders because screw you!".
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    do you think muslims in the uk will start getting attacked on the street now because of what has happened
    No


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, it's time Europe bans media lies

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    We do not choose not to ban cars because of the harm it would cause to cars. Immigration of muslims benefits muslims for sure. Does it benefit the British and Britain
    Firstly, when we equally consider the interests of all human beings, the benefits of immigration to many immigrants far outweighs any proposed downside (again, I'm not going to comment on whether these downsides actually exist or not) to the native population. Some Muslims are bound to be amongst the beneficiaries of such immigration, meaning that I'm really not concerned about whether it benefits Britain specifically, unless the harms of such immigration, on net, outweigh the vast benefits that immigration brings.

    Secondly, it's true that Muslims, on average, underperform when compared with other immigrant groups, but that doesn't mean all of them will. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that we can essentially allow as many people as possible into the country without having to allow in a single Muslim, and that the benefits to the people allowed in will be identical to the benefits that the Muslims would have enjoyed, but with the extra benefit of such immigrants performing better and contributing more to the economy. But, again, we're talking about average figures here: even if I accepted the idea that we should "rate" immigrants, some Muslims will still be likely to contribute a lot to Britain and integrate very well, putting them among the top of the pile (I know some personally), so, again, the idea of banning all Muslim immigration would still be highly flawed. In addition, the government would essentially be saying that Muslims' interests matter less: the idea of a state being seen to support an idea could lead to even more suffering and discrimination.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Firstly, when we equally consider the interests of all human beings, the benefits of immigration to many immigrants far outweighs any proposed downside (again, I'm not going to comment on whether these downsides actually exist or not) to the native population. Some Muslims are bound to be amongst the beneficiaries of such immigration, meaning that I'm really not concerned about whether it benefits Britain specifically, unless the harms of such immigration, on net, outweigh the vast benefits that immigration brings.
    I do not think anyone has the right to make other people worse off in order to perform some act of charity. I realise this is not a mainstream position. On the other hand the mainstream position is that forced charity to other countries should be 0.7% of GDP, which is not that far from zero. Our population is already much more than 0.7% muslim, so I consider any charitable commitment in this regard already fulfilled. My interest in immigration policy is to benefit our own country; I doubt that your formulation would defeat mine at the ballot box, if your side were to phrase its motivation so clearly and honestly in public.

    Secondly, it's true that Muslims, on average, underperform when compared with other immigrant groups, but that doesn't mean all of them will. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that we can essentially allow as many people as possible into the country without having to allow in a single Muslim, and that the benefits to the people allowed in will be identical to the benefits that the Muslims would have enjoyed, but with the extra benefit of such immigrants performing better and contributing more to the economy. But, again, we're talking about average figures here: even if I accepted the idea that we should "rate" immigrants, some Muslims will still be likely to contribute a lot to Britain and integrate very well, putting them among the top of the pile (I know some personally), so, again, the idea of banning all Muslim immigration would still be highly flawed. In addition, the government would essentially be saying that Muslims' interests matter less: the idea of a state being seen to support an idea could lead to even more suffering and discrimination.
    It's quibbling over price; would I let in Abdus Salam? Probably, even with hindsight knowledge that he used his British education to build atomic bombs for Pakistan. But I don't think that exceptional cases like him, even a much lower bar, would exceed about 10,000/year. That would be essentially negligible and pose little threat to social cohesion.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.