Do you actually believe in banning Muslims from entering the UK?

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
  • View Poll Results: Do you think we should ban Muslims from entering the UK?
    Yes
    58
    26.48%
    No
    161
    73.52%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    yes and the Christians should be banned from entering middle east
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samira Ali)
    Im saying all this because i am a muslim who lives in uk and it hurts me to see people thinking muslims are all savages terrorist please never point fingers at a religion or race as before everything we are all humans with emotions .
    No one with any sense thinks all Muslims are savages and terrorists.
    However, anyone with any sense can also see that the ideology of Islam contains passages that can be used to justify killing, oppression and intolerance. And some Muslims do this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    how many number of Muslims are terrorist ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LegalDiaries)
    First they came for the Blacks, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Black and my white privilege would not let me.

    Then they came for the Mexicans, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Mexican and I hate immigrants.

    Then they came for the Moslems, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Moslem and I had no problem with the generalization.

    Then they came for me, a white, non Moslem—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    The only problem with your post (and I see what you did there, very clever!) is that ideologically speaking, Islam has more in common with the authoritarian fascism that Niemoller was railing against, that it has with the oppressed minorities that he was accusing German intellectuals of failing to protect.
    What "western intellectuals" are failing to protect now is the right for people to criticise, challenge, mock and ridicule the ridiculous claims of an unpleasant ideology.

    Otherwise, well done.:congrats:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Someboady)
    The results are just shocking... I can't believe there are so many people who would shun an entire community based on bigotry :/
    While it is clear that Islam is a fundamentally bigoted ideology, I don't think most people hold that against individual Muslims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    go ahead critisize angel gabriel for revealing the messages
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Someboady)
    The results are just shocking... I can't believe there are so many people who would shun an entire community based on bigotry :/
    PREACH! :clap2:

    Its actually disgusting how so many of us treat others based on what we hear from the news.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say no, but on the other hand not letting Muslims into the UK is a necessary precaution. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but at the moment we cannot be entirely sure that the ones let in are not terrorists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    To avoid bureaucracy it's probably best just to do it by nationality and say that nobody from say Pakistan gets citizenship except in x and y circumstances. *
    I'd say there is actually a strong case to grant asylum to Christian, Sufi and Ahmadiyyans from Pakistan because of how they get abused, attacked and killed by the Sunni majority while the state and police turn a blind eye because they support it.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 123teddy)
    yes and the Christians should be banned from entering middle east
    You joke but Christians in places like Egypt, Pakistan (I know it's not Middle East but given what you're getting at I'll include it as an example) are persecuted terribly. A thousand times worse than Muslims are in any country, let alone over here. Not including Ahmadiyyans and Sufis, of course, who get persecuted by other Muslims). In the case of Christians in Iraq for example, they've been around for longer than Islam has even existed yet get treated disgustingly. But people don't care about that.

    Your point implies that this part of the world is an enclave for Muslims and unfortunately lots of Muslims see it this way. "These are Muslim lands" they say as the Ummah moves to condemn invasion in these places by Western heads of state. But this is the problem. This is why non-Muslim religious minorities (such as Yazidis) are in such peril. It's a shame Western SJWs don't care about this oppression and brutality.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    you are not supposed to fight with the people of the books , its in a documentary i watched about Islam ...

    it must be the illiterates fighting each other
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_JoKeR)
    Fanatics hell no, others yeh. Do some sort of a test to see how well they can integrate for like a month or something as well.
    Interesting. So I am a Muslim and have just sent off my university application for Medicine having lived in the UK for my 16 years.

    This test you speak of integrating, I can be quite shy in public especially around people I have not met before so would this mean I fail and get deported if I was coming to the UK as a foreign individual?

    Curious to see exactly what you mean...?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    I'd say there is actually a strong case to grant asylum to Christian, Sufi and Ahmadiyyans from Pakistan because of how they get abused, attacked and killed by the Sunni majority while the state and police turn a blind eye because they support it.*
    I see your point (in the same way that my policy would still allow Muslims already in the US ect.. to come here) however i'd suggest firstly that the policy does not have to achieve perfection and secondly that although i agree with you that those people should have asylum, i do not agree with anybody having asylum in the UK outside special circumstances (Afghan translators for example). My objection is not so much that i disagree with a persons right to flee persecution, but rather that they have no right to turn up at a five star hotel.

    In some ways it's a shame we can't annex a small piece of land somewhere in Africa and essentially declare it an enclave welcome to all. NATO could guarantee it's defense and enforce a western constitution on it, all countries could say provide $1bn each per year to it's development and we could stick the UN institutions there as well. When you consider how many people you could get inside Wales if there were no mountains and keeping the greenbelt was not a concern, you'd only really need say 100 square miles and you'd provide for tens of millions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    ****ing massive! Needs to be to fit on my ****ing massive head.

    PS. Glad you agree with my points.
    When did I agree with your points? :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Q
    E2;67948678
    )

    Of course not! Muslims are individuals, just like eveyone else, and they should be judged on their words and deeds, just like everyone else.
    Do you know I was going to vote no but then I read your excellent post.
    As somebody that loves and adores a homosexual man,( my older brother ) I have decided to vote yes. Thank you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I can't think of many where the motivation and justification was based on Christian ideology, with direct quotes from the Bible used to support their actions, and certainly not in recent years. 
Feel free to elighten me though.


    Then I invite you to do some more research. There are plenty of extremist Christian groups out there that have done more killings than "Muslim" terrorists are doing.


    Some examples are : The Lord's Resistance Army, The National Liberation Front of Tripura, The Concerned Christians, KKK and The Army of God.


    Just because they're not on the news, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
 


    (Original post by QE2)
    Some are, some aren't.
    
I agree completely with you on that.

    Just as anywhere in the world there will always be different people with different views despite their religion, traditions and culture.

    
When I said Muslims are no fanatics, I was speaking for the whole religion, as it's not supposed to be an extremist religion.


    Those that have become so, have clearly deviated from the right path, and we can only pray that they get right back. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    People don't "always mention these things". The only one that comes up regularly is the issue of the hijab (or to be more accurate, the niqab/burqa).
    
Actually, people always like to mention those things.
    They're not Muslim and they know nothing about Islam, yet they judge the whole religion from hearing a few bad cases from the media, which often exaggerates the truth. 


    If the only thing you heard mentioned was about the headscarves, then I'm glad, because you wouldn't believe the ugly things I've heard.



    (Original post by QE2)
    *sigh* If you cannot see the difference between: A) being told that a god (who you believe determines your ultimate fate) wants you to do something, and B) someone deciding to wear a mini skirt instead of jeans on a particular day then it is little wonder that you have trouble with the rest of it.


    I didn't get exactly what you were trying to say there.
    Are you saying that other religions can wear whatever they want because it doesn't say otherwise in their sacred books?

    
I was just saying that, what for some other people is unusual, for us is completely common.

    We need to keep our horizons broad. 
 


    (Original post by QE2)
    They also state that women deserve less than men, are of inferior intellect, and may be beaten by their husbands (under certain conditions). Tricky, eh?
    Can you give me the quotes?

    
Then also please read those "certain conditions". Muslims don't just act violently and rudely without reason.

    
 

    (Original post by QE2)
    Protect your "value"? Why didn't you just go the whole hog (sorry) and use the "wrapped candy" analogy? *smh*


    I'm sorry if we care about our virginity and don't want to give it to the first guy that asks for it.

    I'm also sorry if we don't like getting all kind of STDs by the time we're 16.


    But don't worry, I don't judge, different people will have different likings.

    By the way, males are expected to stay virgins until marriage as well.


    (Original post by QE2)
    No they don't. Some of them have low rates of reporting of sexual offences. This is because (due to the nature of sharia in regards to such offences) the woman can end up being punished herself for making the accusation. There have been well-publicised cases recently of women being sentenced to flogging and prison becausethey accused someone of rape but could not provide the required level of "evidence".
    Whatever it is, reporting or actual statistics, we can only see what it is shown.

    I strongly believe there are less cases in Muslim countries, but as I said before, there will always be those that get on the wrong track of life and do despicable things.


    In the end, his/her punishment will be decided by God.


    (Original post by QE2)
    As you are so well informed, you will know that the man's awrah is from the navel to the knees. Why must a man only wear shorts while a woman must cover from head to toe?
    
Muslims believe we should cover our beauty and any other sexual parts.

    A woman has more beauty on her: her hair (which is styled), her breasts, nether region and thighs should all be covered for those reasons.


    That's what the Quran has said and what our prophet has said, and we believe in them.


    If you see muslims of both genders, you would see that they all wear loose fitted clothes and they cover themselves quite fully.


    The rules above are the minimum. 
 


    (Original post by QE2)
    Whenever I see a women in a hijab/burqa/niqab I make a point of having brazen and vulgar thoughts about her. I naturally do not have such thoughts about the vast majority of "immodest" mom-Muslimahs I see. It is frankly ludicrous that you think men have "brazen and vulgar thoughts" about women all the time. Perhaps it is just Muslim men?


    So it's ludicrous to believe that people think about sex?


    Doesn't everyone joke about that fact that men apparently think about sex every 60 seconds?


    Everyone thinks about it at one point of their lives, it is only natural.

    People might just say "Look, that guy's fit!"

    Or "Look, that girl is so sexy!"

    and that only for muslims is not right.

    The thoughts don't have to to the extreme like "Wow, I want to f*** that chick"


    By brazen and vulgar thoughts I mean any thoughts you would think about the opposite gender in that way.


    Islam tries to lessen those thoughts as much as possible, because, I repeat, we believe in good decorum and value of ourselves. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    Also, if this is the case, why do we see little hirls wearing the hijab? Is it to stop these Muslim men from having "brazen and vulgar thoughts" about them? I find that rather disturbing.


    As said above, it's not something ONLY muslim men think about. Every human being can become a muslim. This relates to any men out there, regardless of their religion.

    (Original post by QE2)
    Ah, there we go. So if hair is so lust-inflaming, why don't men have to cover theirs? Don't women get brazen and lustful thoughts on seeing a man's head? Or it it just the bit between the navel and the knees that gives them a wide-on?
    
As explained above women's hair is more beautiful.

    What Muslims' believe is that women are more beautiful than men (sorry boys XD) and so they have more to cover.

    I want to stress that women are not forced, but we know ourselves wearing hijab is for our decorum and self preservation, and that it follows the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). 


    (Original post by QE2)
    Women had the right to own property, earn money and inherit wealth in Arabia before Islam. See Khadeja as an example (she was Muhammad's first wife BTW)
    That still points out that when people say women are very undervalued in Saudi Arabia/other Muslim countries, they are wrong.

    (Original post by QE2)
    "For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe." - Quran 8:55
    What are you trying to show with this quote?

    It basically means that the worst of people are those that falsely state "I believe" when they know they don't.

    Translating correctly is quite tricky. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. - 2:228
    I hope you didn't interpret this quote as saying that husbands order wives around.

    The quote simply says that husbands have the duty and responsibility of taking care of their wives, and they speak for their wives' actions.

    (Original post by QE2)
    "Abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess - 23:6 (Allah is talking about sex slaves here!)
    You got the quote wrong.
    It doesn't say "abstain from sex" and it doesn't refer to 'captives' at all.

    Before the verse you quoted, there was

    "And cover your private parts (wear hijab)" 23:5

    And then "Except with those joined to them in marriage, or to whom their right hands possess." 23:6

    This quote basically says that you don't have to wear hijab in front of your husband/wife and any other close family members.

    The translation is not good, and the part "their right hands possess" means close bonds that you possess by blood or legally (so marriage partner, father, mother, auntie, brother. ...)

    (Original post by QE2)
    Whataboutery. Just because someone else does something bad, that doesn't make your bad thing any less bad. When people resort to this argument, they know that they are guilty of the accusation and they are just trying to deflect.
    I didn't say that at all.

    The whole point of my long post from yesterday was to explain and educate people on why muslims do things we do. I only 'deflected' to give an example. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    The Quran contains as much violence, intolerance and discrimination as it does anything worthwhile.
    Wherever violence is mentioned, it has been given a valid reason.

    Muslims believe in self defence, so if we're attacked, we are entitled to fight back.


    Please give me examples about the intolerance and discriminating points. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    Which is why Islam faces such problems when it comes up against modern, civilised society. I fail to see why the refusal to adapt, amend and modernise is something to be proud of.
    But what would you define as modern and civilised? How, in your opinion, we're not modern and civilised?
    I believe your terms are based too much on western society.

    The only thing we are proud of, is that we didn't change the word of Allah (the Quran).

    Whatever muslim country you saw that is not 'modern' enough for your tastes, that's on you.

    Probably those 'uncivilised' communities you speak of are in a country where the government just doesn't have the money to support them. 


    (Original post by QE2)
    More whataboutery. There were probably practical reasons in the original prohibition, but modern farming and food practices make such a prohibition pointless and unnecessary. Did you know that many times more people get ill or die from eating poultry than from eating pork?
    Modern farming? So when you see a farm, say, in England, the pigs are always in a spotless concrete room?

    The Quran says that pork is the worst meat: the animals usually live in muddy conditions and are known to eat excrements.
    Consequently, we believe the meat to be quite unclean.

    Furthermore, pork has one of the highest fat-to-meat ratios, which everyone knows it's not good for you.

    Also pork is known to have all kind of parasites like tapeworm that can affect all the organs in your body in extreme cases.

    Yes, also other animals have diseases, but we believe pork in particular to be the worst and so it's not allowed.


    (Original post by QE2)
    Which teachings are ISIS going against? Specifically? Because they always seem to accompany their actions with lengthy statements containing references from the Quran and sunnah.
    They go against many:

    - They force conversions: that is against what the Quran teaches. We believe Islam should be embraced freely and not under duress. Anyone that is forcibly converted is de facto not valid, as the only way you become a Muslim is when you absolutely mean it.

    - Torture: ISIS is known for their torture and mutilation acts, which all Muslims shun and it's against the Quran.

    - Killings: many people know the quote in the Quran that says "by killing one person, you might as well have killed all human kind". ISIS also kills innocents, women and children, which we believe to be one of the most despicable of sins.

    - Persecution: ISIS persecutes thousands of Christians and Yazidis. They are violating the teachings of the Quran that says that we should respect and safeguard the 'People of the Book' (Christians, Yazidis and other monotheist religions).

    - Oppression: ISIS has taken simple commandments from the Quran and extremely enforced them unjustly, with things like forcing women to wear a full-on burka and forcing men to grow beards.

    They also cause slavery, revived concubinage, and give extremely harsh punishments.

    All these are against the teachings of Islam, and whenever they justify their acts by the Sunnah and Quran, they are doing so wrongly.

    They are simply translating and applying those quotes too extremely and not in what the Quran/Sunnah really meant.


    (Original post by QE2)
    Wow! Calling takfir of fellow Muslims. You do know that Allah's penalty for doing that improperly is to have the takfir rebound onto you?
    I'm happy you were so interested in Islam you had to research that.

    And why am I sensing mirth here?

    Muslims worldwide have shunned ISIS from the community, with clear reasons in doing so (explained before).

    You should know I'm not saying this lightly, and there are many reasons why I don't accept ISIS members as fellow brothers and sisters.

    And if I am wrong, Allah is most forgiving.


    (Original post by QE2)
    Well, if the have sincerely taken the shahadah and follow the five pillars, then they are Muslims. Just because they follow a different interpretation of Islam to you does not affect that. You are aware, of course, that they would probably call you a "not Muslim"?
    
Just taking the shahadah and following the five pillars is NOT enough.

    Those are simply the main features of being a muslim.

    Being a true Muslim also reflects your morality and how you behave and how good you follow the Quran and Muhammad (pbuh).

    Their 'different' interpretation of Islam is completely wrong, so to me they're not Muslim at all, by committing all those horrendous crimes without a valid reason and hiding behind the name of Allah in vain.




    ---------------------------------------------

    For any other issues and questions feel free to reply to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Are you deliberately trying to deceive people or are you just ignorant? No Western women before the 1860s owned property and titles in their own right? So women like Elizabeth I, Isabella I of Castile, Joanna of Castile, Katherine de la Pole, Margaret Beaufort, Margaret Pole, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Empress Matilda, Fritigil, Boudicca and Hilda of Whitby didn't exist then, to name but a tiny few?
    But those women had the fortune of being born noblewomen and in influential and powerful families.

    For example, Elizabeth I was the heiress to the throne, of course she had to own things. How bad would it have looked if they hadn't?

    My point was the law on women in general (those of common birth that, really, made more than 90% of the population).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bravefoot)
    But those women had the fortune of being born noblewomen and in influential and powerful families.

    Your comment in class is really a non-point. It was only really people from rich families that could own vast estates and that goes for both men and women. The overwhelming majority of common men, just like common women, would not have owned any substantial properties either.

    For example, Elizabeth I was the heiress to the throne, of course she had to own things. How bad would it have looked if they hadn't?

    My point was the law on women in general (those of common birth that, really, made more than 90% of the population).
    Don't change the goalposts. You said women before that time couldn't own property, you mentioned nothing about their social class. The point is that plenty of women did own property and titles in their own right.

    Your comment about class is really a non-point. Pretty much only people from rich families could own substantial amounts of land, property and titles and that went for both men and women. Therefore the majority of common men, just like common women, didn't own any substantial property.

    And mentioning Elizabeth I only strengthens my point, the fact women could even be queen regnants dispels the myth that women could never attain positions of power and influence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mandem67)
    Like do you actually want a ban on Muslims and people from the Middle East from entering the UK?

    I was wondering whether TSR agrees or disagrees with this surprisingly popular view
    I think you mean bann muslim immigration (visiting the UK is fine as lone they do not migrate), than yes. It is a rational decision and if you have banned muslim immigration decades ago you would never had Rotherham scandals and 7/7 Bombers.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 21, 2016
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
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

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