Do Muslims want to Assimilate?

[LuisDantas]

Secularism does not ensure religious freedom. You may think it does but history proves otherwise.

That is very much like saying that law does not eradicate crime, so it should not exist.

Secularism does not always work in practice, but it is clearly superior to the alternative.

It is a bit depressing that the matter is even discussed at this point in time. It should be no more controversial than literacy or raising food, really.

And no, it's not the same mentality at all.

And my comment but indigenous Brits losing certain values is entirely true, the growing number of single mothers, fathers walking out on their children, the lack of charity without some material gain in return is a problem we all face. Politicians in Britain have spoken about it for years, a "return to British values". Those values are enshrined in Islam.

And if you want, google the MI5 report on terrorism 2008. It's pretty easy to find considering it was reported in the media at the time but not as widely as it should have been.

Anyway, you haven't countered any of my arguments. Why do you think Muslims need to assimilate more? What is assimilation in your eyes beyond holding hands with secularism.

Assimilation is probably not a concept worth developing or pursuing. In some ways it is too similar to what we want to avoid in Islam.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The former head of the British Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has said that Muslims are creating a "state within a state" in Britain. He was commenting on a survey of British Muslims that showed
> 52% want homosexuality to be made a crime
> 23% want Sharia law
http://europe.newsweek.com/muslims-...s-says-former-head-uk-equalities-446163?rm=eu

A couple of weeks ago, a Muslim in Scotland murdered an Ahmadi. Now we have leaflets advocating more such murders circulating in a London mosque.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35928848

How much more evidence do we need that most Muslims will never fit into a civilised society?

 

[icehorse]

That is very much like saying that law does not eradicate crime, so it should not exist.

Secularism does not always work in practice, but it is clearly superior to the alternative.

It is a bit depressing that the matter is even discussed at this point in time. It should be no more controversial than literacy or raising food, really.


Assimilation is probably not a concept worth developing or pursuing. In some ways it is too similar to what we want to avoid in Islam.

Hey Luis,

I'm starting to agree with you here. How about "integrate"? Does that work better to describe a healthy relationship between an immigrant and a host country?

 

[Agondonter]

Newsweek, 4/11/16:

MUSLIMS ARE CREATING ‘NATIONS WITHIN NATIONS’ SAYS FORMER HEAD OF U.K. EQUALITIES COMMISSION

They flee from war only to bring the same conditions that created the mess they are fleeing from into their host nations.

And the stupid, politically correct West calls it "hate" to acknowledge this obvious fact.

 

[LuisDantas]

How much more evidence do we need that most Muslims will never fit into a civilised society?

Most Muslims, or most Muslim communities?

That is a very significant distinction that must be made.

 

[Agondonter]

No self-respecting country would allow foreigners to create no-go zones within their own borders, nor can they long survive if they did.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey Luis,

I'm starting to agree with you here. How about "integrate"? Does that work better to describe a healthy relationship between an immigrant and a host country?

IMO, yes it does. But it must be understood that integration is a dynamic, reciprocal process that is by need somewhat unstable. It must be if it is to have any value.

I have come to hope for the eventual establishment of significant efforts at reciprocal limited-period migration as a superior alternative to full expatriation and segregation, even when those are voluntary. Many places seem to have confused self-perception issues far as community, representation and identity go. Cyprus and Ireland spring to mind.

It is entirely unreasonable IMO to expect people to simply want to renounce their heritages as a matter of course simply because they are surrounded by people who do not share of it.

Among other reasons, because they can't be expected to know how to do that, but also because the twin yet opposed needs for both belonging and individuality just don't work that way.

Immigrants who are perceived as foreigners who must assimilate to the custom of the land will be neither trusted nor respected by either their hosts nor they colleagues. If anything, that expectation rises their motivation to keep to their traditions to a higher level than they would otherwise want to, because they need to preserve their perspectives of social acceptance somehow. If they don't feel sufficiently welcome by their hosts, they will have no choice but to emphasize their original tradition and identity and seek support on those grounds.

That is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a very destructive one that must be dispelled if we are to know lasting peace.

So instead all nations and communities should consider the tremendous mid and long term benefits of voluntary, gradual, mutual interchange. People should be encouraged to engage in limited scale, temporary migration with a set timetable for their return. In roughly reciprocal numbers if at all possible. If nothing else, that will create the seed for better acceptance of foreigners, language dissemination, weakening of national identities and cultural boundaries, and the basis for true mutual understanding. We badly need all of those intangible yet tremendously valuable resources.

 

[LuisDantas]

No self-respecting country would allow foreigners to create no-go zones within their own borders, nor can they long survive if they did.

That is the current situation. In some ways, the solution is to choose our own ways of letting go of the premise's credibility. We must learn to deemphasize perceptions of a contrast between foreigners and nationals, which are ultimately more of a problem than a solution.

 

[Agondonter]

That is the current situation. In some ways, the solution is to choose our own ways of letting go of the premise's credibility. We must learn to deemphasize perceptions of a contrast between foreigners and nationals, which are ultimately more of a problem than a solution.

It sounds like you're an apologist for the Muslim invaders; that the host nations are obliged to make changes and accomodate the invaders in a kind of cultural suicide.

 

[LuisDantas]

It sounds like you're an apologist for the Muslim invaders;

Does it? I don't think I am often mistaken for such an apologist, but if you say so.

that the host nations are obliged to make changes and accomodate the invaders in a kind of cultural suicide.

Actually, that is an ethical duty for every nation far as I am concerned.

It just happens that Islam is a particularly urgent challenge to be met with those flexibility and integration tactics.

 

[icehorse]

That is the current situation. In some ways, the solution is to choose our own ways of letting go of the premise's credibility. We must learn to deemphasize perceptions of a contrast between foreigners and nationals, which are ultimately more of a problem than a solution.

If I understand you correctly, I think I disagree. Predominantly, we see immigrant fleeing from Muslim majority countries. We see very little immigration in the other direction. Why should countries that have more successful societies - based on people voting with their feet - dilute their successful societies for immigrants. Wouldn't it make more sense for immigrants from largely failed states to leave their bad ideas behind?

 

[Agondonter]

Does it? I don't think I am often mistaken for such an apologist, but if you say so.



Actually, that is an ethical duty for every nation far as I am concerned.

It just happens that Islam is a particularly urgent challenge to be met with those flexibility and integration tactics.

Interesting....as far as you're concerned, cultural suicide is an ethical duty of every nation.

How many non-Muslims visit Mecca every year?

 

[Aquitaine]

Secularism does not ensure religious freedom. You may think it does but history proves otherwise.

Let me guess, Soviet Union?
Secularism on it's own in a nation without constitutional and human rights of some sort will be open to any kind of abuse. The exact same can be said for Theocracy: good luck being a religious minority in an orthodox theocracy with no constitutional and/or human rights.

Secularism merely ensures that all religions are equally given the same amount of political power over the state and the people: 0%.
Of course, you yourself quite like the idea of living under an Islamic theocracy, but the best way to think of it is if you're living in a theocracy of a different religion: how does a Hindu or orthodox Jewish theocracy sound?

And no, it's not the same mentality at all.

You bring up valid points regarding generalisation of immigrants and muslims, yet you display the exact same behaviour towards Hindus.

And my comment but indigenous Brits losing certain values is entirely true, the growing number of single mothers, fathers walking out on their children, the lack of charity without some material gain in return is a problem we all face. Politicians in Britain have spoken about it for years, a "return to British values". Those values are enshrined in Islam.

Ah but two can play this game you see: honour killings, FGM, homophobia, subjugation of women, arranged (and sometimes incestuous) marriage with the expectation of children, intolerance of criticism, interolerence of progress.
It is very easy for one to make blanket generalisations about a large group of people, foolish, but certainly easy.
Oh and for the record, the whole "return to British values" thing is usually nothing more than Tory/UKIP rhetoric in order to appease the older and/or Christian demographic of the electorate. For women, non-whites, LGBTs, progressive thinkers and non-religious folk, life in Britain now is a lot better than in the 1950's that so many people seem to fantasise about.

And if you want, google the MI5 report on terrorism 2008. It's pretty easy to find considering it was reported in the media at the time but not as widely as it should have been.

The same media that is diabolically trying to demonize Islam? In all seriousness, I'll google it and read it sometime soon.

Anyway, you haven't countered any of my arguments. Why do you think Muslims need to assimilate more? What is assimilation in your eyes beyond holding hands with secularism.

To be fair most of your points are just your own opinion mixed in with a bunch of wild generalizations.
As you are late to this thread I will restate my position on this issue: in a nutshell I am in favour of integration, not assimilation.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I understand you correctly, I think I disagree. Predominantly, we see immigrant fleeing from Muslim majority countries. We see very little immigration in the other direction. Why should countries that have more successful societies - based on people voting with their feet - dilute their successful societies for immigrants.

To heal from the nasty delusion of nationalism, mostly.

Wouldn't it make more sense for immigrants from largely failed states to leave their bad ideas behind?

Of course. That is one of the benefits my proposal aims to attain.

 

[LuisDantas]

Interesting....as far as you're concerned, cultural suicide is an ethical duty of every nation.

I wouldn't call it by that name, obviously... but yeah.

How many non-Muslims visit Mecca every year?

Nearly none. It is illegal, far as I know.

Your point?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To heal from the nasty delusion of nationalism, mostly.

Hey Luis, sorry, haven't really been following the thread...but...
Do you see nationalism as more delusional than religious differences? Both appear to be human constructs, but at a base generic level speak to differences in approach to life, and life experience.

 

[icehorse]

To heal from the nasty delusion of nationalism, mostly.

Of course. That is one of the benefits my proposal aims to attain.

Ah Luis, okay. If I read you more or less correctly, you're discussing a long game in which we also rid ourselves of nation states? Sure, I'm all for that, but one step at a time. I'm attempting to come from the position that I can be a supporter of the enlightenment and secular humanism, and be relatively free of nationalism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey Luis, sorry, haven't really been following the thread...but...
Do you see nationalism as more delusional than religious differences?

Yes. And inherently harmful, unlike religious differences.

Both appear to be human constructs, but at a base generic level speak to differences in approach to life, and life experience.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ah Luis, okay. If I read you more or less correctly, you're discussing a long game in which we also rid ourselves of nation states?

I don't think it is a long game at all, personally. Purposefully letting go of national identities is fairly urgent a need, IMO.

From what I have seen in the nipo-brazilian colony, it is also far less painful than most people assume.

Sure, I'm all for that, but one step at a time. I'm attempting to come from the position that I can be a supporter of the enlightenment and secular humanism, and be relatively free of nationalism.

That may be an unrealistic choice of priorities.

 

[Agondonter]

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from, LD.

I call it "living a pipe dream." Cultural suicide is not an answer,

Deal with the world the way it is rather than how you imagine it should be.