Misinterpreting Cause and Effect – Migration Always Occurs Under Duress

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jan 18, 2022 at 13:38

Misinterpreting Cause and Effect – Migration Always Occurs Under Duress
Reader Banerjee has been a prolific contributor in this forum for longer than this observer has been involved; but it did not take long to determine that that participation had been derived from a specific perspective, not unexpected from the stated opinion base of being a Muslim of non-Arabic persuasion, not unexpected of being anti-Western and anti-American, of being anti-Israel; no surprises here, just unfortunate in that after hundreds of years of evidence to the contrary, those opinions having been formulated in order to promote Islam as the way so many were brought up to believe that life in this way was best, does not bring the satisfaction that was promised because not every one believed it was the best; it has its failures, no matter how it is presented in the West. The evidence in those failures results in Muslim migration for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the inequities amongst those who are Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and all the other variations: which is the best?
Even more basic, is the Quran in Arabic more moral than if in other translations; where does the belief gets it basic tenets and why, if the more prolific translations were accomplished by non-Arabic scholars, each with their own level of understanding, which divines the truth if not universally understood? We hear Muslim testimony of entire societies abolished for not following in perfect union: why is that; was the testimony perverted? How are we to think that Reader Banerjee has the best interpretation when he cannot point to the most direct cause of migration from the east to the west. Is it not easy for westerners to think something is being hidden (just as the Quran directs(?)) merely on Reader Banerjee and other Muslims' testimony?
Let us go further back; the real reason Islam does what it does; destruction of societies that did not immediately capitulate to Quranic invectives that the conquered populations were to be destroyed just because they did not understand how the Quran was supposed to be the replacement religion after Christianity failed in its non-Christian corruption to be obedient to the Savior, the Christ in His commandment to spread the Gospel. Reader Banerjee dismisses that. He has to be dismissive of that since it does not fit the narrative of why masses of Islamic populations find it necessary to move way since it appears they cannot form self-sustaining population centers but which eventually disintegrate for the lack of proper leadership.
No society that is commenced in violence and not resolved in peace will last; for if conquest does not drive their constant desire for violence, then their purposes are empty and cannot build into the commerce that is necessary to sustain multitudes in the populations. It is of such that are likened to locusts; they move on (migrate) when resources are exhausted. The world is in that mode of migration because the locust mentality of avarice driven high finance is integrated globally and allows for the disruption of secularistic socialism (such as it was October, 1917) to interfere in even the most organized republican form of governance since individuals have forgotten their oath of service.
In a roundabout way, this is what Reader Banerjee alludes to when he questions (even in ignorance) why the Western model of civilization does not fit well with the oriental model, which by its very nature of collapsed empires, does not have the sense of allowing freedom for its citizenry for the ambitions of empire that is inherent in ancient empires. It is why they have fallen; and will never allow for the freedom of the citizens for the draconian desires of their leaders. Which leaders might they follow? Even Reader Banerjee cannot answer that; for not everyone will follow al-Madhi.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".