Do Muslims want to Assimilate?

[icehorse]

Tough question..I mean killing muslims in a mindblowing rate and numbers might be a reason. That might actually be the main reason..but i'm not an expert.

Over the course of the last 1400 years or so:

- About 200-300 million people have been killed in the name of Christianity
- About 200-300 million people have been killed in the name of Islam

What particular slice of history do you use to make that claim?

 

[icehorse]

Ofcourse i respect the culture of the land. Iam not unthankful person.

Didnt come here to disrespect them, i just have my own religion and tradition.

How far does your religion and tradition extend? Does it include, for example, a desire to live under Sharia?

 

[icehorse]

It happens there, too. Interpersonal group dynamics are complicated, and seem necessarily tribal and riddled with things like social norms and pressure to conform to those norms. There is a particular "us vs. them" dynamic that happens between natives and immigrants of a land - I don't think it would be a stretch to characterize the reaction against Muslims in particular as downright xenophobic.

I don't think this is as slippery as is often claimed. Instead of saying "the West", I'll speak as a secular humanist. When a secular humanist society welcomes immigrants, the immigrants should understand and embrace the core values of their hosts. Values such as:

- freedom of expression
- freedom of and from religion
- freedom of sexual orientation
- secularism itself
- a non-supremacist mindset

I'm all for sharing cuisines, and art, and music, and so on. But those core values are not to be fiddled with - not one tiny little bit.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm all for sharing cuisines, and art, and music, and so on. But those core values are not to be fiddled with - not one tiny little bit.

Who determines what the "core values" of are of the host culture? Presuming this can be determined, why should those not be "fiddled with" even "one tiny little bit?"

I raise the question because I do not share what some consider "core values" of American culture, and very much believe they should be "fiddled with." Do I have some magical right to do this because I was born in this country? Why would that be?

 

[icehorse]

Who determines what the "core values" of are of the host culture? Presuming this can be determined, why should those not be "fiddled with" even "one tiny little bit?"

I raise the question because I do not share what some consider "core values" of American culture, and very much believe they should be "fiddled with." Do I have some magical right to do this because I was born in this country? Why would that be?

Let me start by asking why you side-stepped the five I listed? And second, those five are implied or explicit in the US constitution.

So I agree that there are some values held by some folks in my society that I disagree with. But a country's constitution ought to be a decent starting place, no?

Finally, isn't it wonderful that in a secular society that we have the chance to revise our laws? I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here - if the majority of a country's citizens vote for change, that's one thing. If a group of immigrants choose to disregard their host country's values and laws, that's quite another.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Assimilate" into what? For countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the native populations and their cultures have been all but destroyed and replaced by colonialists and immigrants, "assimilation" doesn't have much meaning. There is no real common culture in America, for example. It's always been a patchwork of different ethnicities, regional cultures, subcultures, etc. Even moving from one area of the country to another is like moving to a completely different country. I'm from San Francisco originally and moving to Ohio was like moving to a different country, for example. There is no overall "American culture".

 

[Quintessence]

Let me start by asking why you side-stepped the five I listed? And second, those five are implied or explicit in the US constitution.

I don't understand why you think I am "side-stepping" anything given you didn't ask me a question before. What am I supposed to be responding to?

I asked some questions that I find very important in relation to what you commented: who determines what the "core values" of are of a culture? Presuming this can be determined, why should those not be "fiddled with" even "one tiny little bit?" Mind you, I ask because I'm simply curious as to your reasoning.

Are you saying the constitution determines the "core values" of American culture? If so, given there are provisions in place to change the constitution, I'm a bit confused by the earlier shouldn't be fiddled with every comments, I guess?

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here - if the majority of a country's citizens vote for change, that's one thing. If a group of immigrants choose to disregard their host country's values and laws, that's quite another.

Why is is it quite another thing? What makes their voices unimportant? Why do I have a magical privilege that these people lack merely because I was born here? When I think about it, that is really very odd!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think this is as slippery as is often claimed. Instead of saying "the West", I'll speak as a secular humanist. When a secular humanist society welcomes immigrants, the immigrants should understand and embrace the core values of their hosts. Values such as:

- freedom of expression
- freedom of and from religion
- freedom of sexual orientation
- secularism itself
- a non-supremacist mindset

I'm all for sharing cuisines, and art, and music, and so on. But those core values are not to be fiddled with - not one tiny little bit.

You better support kicking out millions of native-born Americans, then, because tens of millions of just white Americans probably don't agree with those values.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why is is it quite another thing? What makes their voices unimportant? Why do I have a magical privilege that these people lack merely because I was born here? When I think about it, that is really very odd!

Yeah, especially since in countries like America, the vast majority of us are either direct immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. The Europeans who came over here weren't so concerned with upholding the folkways of the Native Americans and actively destroyed them.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Quint,

I'm going to assume you're being sincere:

You asked "who determines core values" and "why can't they be fiddled with"?

As I said earlier, "core values" are typically in a country's constitution, and perhaps also in the body of law.

And they CAN be fiddled with, that's one advantage of a secular society. But they can't be fiddled with, without following the laws of the host country. For example, if ANY religious group attempts to establish their own court-of-law system, such an attempt should be shut down. If any group - regardless of how long they've been in the host country - wants to change a law, they must follow the legal process to do so.

As far as "their voices unimportant", really? I never said that! Every citizen has - in theory - an equal voice. But NO GROUP, can choose to disregard the laws of the land. Quint, you don't have any "magical privilege". If an immigrant obtains citizenship, their voice is equal to yours. I never implied anything different.


Saint Frankenstein:

Assimilate into the secular values of the host countries.

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, especially since in countries like America, the vast majority of us are either direct immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. The Europeans who came over here weren't so concerned with upholding the folkways of the Native Americans and actively destroyed them.

Dude, EVERYONE is living on conquered land, EVERYONE.

Are you saying that immigrants = invaders?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Dude, EVERYONE is living on conquered land, EVERYONE.

Are you saying that immigrants = invaders?

In the case of colonization and enslaving, committing physical and cultural genocide of those there before you arrived, yes. In the case of legally immigrating or otherwise moving to a nation, no (I do not think of undocumented Latino immigrants as "invaders", for example).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Assimilate into the secular values of the host countries.

America isn't really all that secular, thanks to Christians.

 

[icehorse]

America isn't really all that secular, thanks to Christians.

Not as secular as it should be, agreed. But few people in the last 2000 years have enjoyed the degree of secularism that Americans enjoy.

 

[GodlessHeathen]

I see what icehorse is trying to say and want to agree with it. However, this is a far more difficult point to argue than it seems.

"Inherent Rights"

Some people lay claim to "inherent rights" or "inalienable rights". While I want to support this concept, there is actually little support for it other than just simply asserting that people have them. Some religious people may claim that these rights come from God, but that's a problem when you consider that not everyone believes in the same God in the same way and a decent chunk of society doesn't even believe in God. In our pluralistic society, this doesn't really fly. Likewise, some secular people will argue that these rights are inscribed in a country's constitution. But if the constitution is subject to democratic change from time to time, then these rights are by definition not inherent. Constitutions may not explicitly mention certain rights which ends up jeopardizing them as our societies and technology changes over time. So this isn't practical either.

Democracy

If there is no such thing as "inherent rights", then that means that our rights and freedoms are a purely legal construct that is subject to the whims of our political system. Obviously, in most of the West, that would be democracy. We run into a little bit of an issue here. Let's say that over time our societies change and we no longer support freedom of religion. The majority vote to remove this freedom from the constitution and it is done. Is this right? Most people would probably argue that it isn't right, but if that's what the majority of the people want, then we have to come to grips with the fact that either a) We really do not support democratic rule in all cases, or b) Accept that "inherent rights" do not exist and allow oppression to occur in the name of democracy. Since Option B isn't palatable in most cases, then we must accept Option A.

Constitution

If we accept Option A in that we do not support democratic rule in all cases, we must then accept an institution that will be unchanging in the face of public pressure to the contrary. However, this will inevitably lead to civil unrest if people cannot be governed in the manner they choose. Civil unrest typically leads to more government oppression as it attempts to bring law and order back to a society. Basically it boils down to an option of either oppressing minorities or making the majority discontent.

Multiculturalism

When most people think of multiculturalism, they think of sharing cuisine, art, music, movies, and languages. While sharing these are generally-speaking unobjectionable, the people bringing their recipes for wontons, curry, shawarma, pizza, or borscht also bring with them other cultural values, some of which are completely incompatible with our own. There is a strong economic argument for multiculturalism, however there is no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too.

Immigration

We need an immigration system that filters out people who will not be compatible with our society. That is, those who do not expressly agree with all the core values. Admittedly, this can be a rather difficult task at times. But if the majority are on board with the whole idea of freedom of religion/speech/press, etc., then we have a greater chance of avoiding both oppression and civil strife. While granted there are some native-born people who oppose these ideals, in part or in full, they do have a right to express them. However, as a nation, we also have the ability to not allow people to enter into our societies who will not fit in and who do not agree with it. In the West, that means accepting more immigrants from North America, South America, Europe, and Oceania. And while I'm not saying we should completely shut off immigration from Asia and Africa, we should simply scrutinize these potential immigrants more, knowing that there is a good chance their values are not compatible with ours. When we allow people into our societies, it is with an implicit understanding that they will work to help build them up, not tear them down. If there is a massive influx of people in our backyards demanding Sharia law all of a sudden, the fault is our own for allowing those people here in the first place. We should not. We should embrace multiculturalism, but not at the expense of admitting those in our countries who oppose our very ideals.

 

[Sakeenah]

Some factual claims from the article linked to below:

- About 44 million Muslims live in Europe
- Europe has been encouraging Muslim immigration for 70 years
- A significant percentage of the Muslims living in Europe disagree with secularism.

Of course I understand that NOT ALL MUSLIMS living in Europe fall into this category. On the other hand, we often use statistics to draw general conclusions; e.g. "cancer is dangerous", "green vegetables are nutritious", "seat belts save lives", "Ethiopians have shorter life spans", and so on.

So, is it fair to conclude that: "Muslim immigrants do not want to assimilate into their host countries." ?

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-do-europes-muslims-hate-the-west/

I'm a European muslim and I don't want to assimilate but I do belief integration is important.To me assimiliation means to leave my cultural and islamic traditions behind and that's not something I'm willing to do because my culture and religion are a part of my indentity. I also belief that by forcing people to assimiliate you will push people out of society.

But I do think integration is important. We should respect and abide by the law of the country..interact with others respectfully.And try to contribute to society.I can't force my beliefs on others or expect them to follow it.

I belief that one can integrate and practice their cultural or religious traditions as long as those traditions aren't harmful to society.
For example I wear hijab (head scarf) I might not look "western" but I'm not harming anyone by wearing it nor am I forcing other women to dress the same. And my headscarf isnt holding me back from taking part in society.

The problem is when we expect people to assimiliate meaning "be like us otherwise we will not accept you"
For many of us it feels like an ultimatum..your indentity,culture and religion or being part of society. I can't speak for other muslims but if I get that ultimatum I will choose to take a step back and not participate in society. Because why should I take part in a society that doesn't accept me for who I am.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Sakeenah,

"Assimilate" is a tricky word. I'd say that it's not black and white. It's not either you have or you have not assimilated. There are degrees of assimilation. But to say "I don't want to assimilate" as you did, strikes me as a problem. Your host country has welcomed you. You will be using your host's infrastructure. You will be using your host's services. If you have an accident, your host will send an ambulance to help you. So when you say "I don't want to assimilate", I guess I'm curious to know specifically what you mean by that?

I have to say that when you mention your religion, that also gives me pause. Islam has a STRONG political component. You put a burden on your host when you say you want to "practice your religious traditions". Does that include turning your hosts into dhimmis? If you say "of course not", let me ask you how I should know your intentions? Your "religion" teaches Muslims that they are better than non-believers. It teaches you that Muslims should rule over all others. Is that your agenda? How can I tell?

So Sakeenah, you seem like a good person. But from my perspective Islam is not simply a religion, and the political components of Islam conflict with your host country. How do I know that you don't have a non-secular, political agenda? If you don't, then you should realize that the implication is that you're asking me to cherry pick your "religion" and assume that you believe in some verses but not others. Of course, we're also told that you believe your scripture is perfect, so that makes my cherry picking job even harder.

 

[Flankerl]

It's not about Assimilation, its about Integration.

 

[Aquitaine]

Tough question..I mean killing muslims in a mindblowing rate and numbers might be a reason. That might actually be the main reason..but i'm not an expert.

Except the problem with that type of thinking is that it's the western politicians and leaders who authorize military action in muslim countries, not the civilians.
Who gets targeted in these suicide bomb attacks?

 

[icehorse]

It's not about Assimilation, its about Integration.

I'd say depends on the guest's incoming ideology.