Europe's multiculturalist (authoritarians?), trying to make mass immigration mandatory?

[icehorse]

I have known many secular Muslims, myself, and my country isn't even exactly liberal overall. One of them—who is pro-LGBT, feminist, and accepting of people of other religions—specifically wants to emigrate to escape from extreme conservatism and other issues facing people like her (e.g., frequent sexism and religious intolerance).

She's also a hijabi by choice, so I guess I should tell her that she's "not really a Muslim" and that she should be banned from Europe.

Yes indeed, it seems that these days personal anecdotes receive outsized credibility, sigh.

 

[Left Coast]

Sharia is - by definition - completely incompatible with secularism.

No, I'm sorry, but it isn't. Practicing Muslims live in the West right now. Say you understand this. If so, then logically you ought to comprehend that there are versions of Islam, and by extension sharia, compatible with Western societies.

I would be critical of any immigrant who wants to bring any form of theocracy.

Why only immigrants?

As far as I know almost all major sects in Islam are totalitarian. Perhaps Baha'i are not?

Baha'i isn't technically Islam, it's an offshoot that's it's own religion.

Again, perhaps you need to get out and talk to more actual Muslims in the real world where you live. They want the freedom to live peacefully just like you.

Some parts of Islam are diverse, but the fundamentals are not. And that's what I'm talking about. Have you read the Quran? Are you saying that you can be a Muslim and say explicitly that the Quran is in error?

Muslims have different interpretations of the Qur'an. Surely you must know this. This is basic. You are treating Islam like a monolith. It isn't.

Ah, good old identity politics, way to throw try to throw a spanner into thoughtful disagreements. You ought to see if you can go an entire thread disagreeing with someone without using some cheap fallacy argument.

Mentioning that your policy idea reminds me of Trump, who infamously promised to ban Muslim immigration, is "identity politics?" What are you talking about?

My guy, turn off Jordan Peterson. You're just repeating catchphrases. Things aren't "PC" or "identity politics" or "woke" just because you don't like them. Ironically, your broadbrush generalizations about Islam are quite in line with identity politics, just a right wing version of them.

 

[icehorse]

No, I'm sorry, but it isn't. Practicing Muslims live in the West right now. Say you understand this. If so, then logically you ought to comprehend that there are versions of Islam, and by extension sharia, compatible with Western societies.

Can you tell me your definition of Sharia? Because to me it is explicitly antithetical to secularism.

Why only immigrants?

I thought that was the question. To zoom out, I'm critical of anyone who promotes theocracy, of any sort.

Again, perhaps you need to get out and talk to more actual Muslims in the real world where you live. They want the freedom to live peacefully just like you.

Ok, so can you name a major sect of Islam that's not fundamentally theocratic? As I recall, that's your claim?

As for living peacefully, trying to force theocracy into a secular state is NOT a peaceful act.

As for talking to Muslims, I'm sorry, I don't think personal anecdotes hold a lot of water when discussing laws and policies.

Muslims have different interpretations of the Qur'an. Surely you must know this. This is basic. You are treating Islam like a monolith. It isn't.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I've already allowed for variations. But there are immutable fundamentals that you seem to want to disregard. Am I understanding you correctly?

Mentioning that your policy idea reminds me of Trump, who infamously promised to ban Muslim immigration, is "identity politics?" What are you talking about?

I think that liberals and moderates and conservatives can all be critical of Islam. So for you to liken my post to something the dumpster fire said is to attempt to put me into some sort of political category, into which I will not agree to go.

Ironically, your broadbrush generalizations about Islam are quite in line with identity politics, just a right wing version of them.

There are things to be known about Islam, such as the idea that the Quran is claimed to be the perfect, timeless word of god.

I choose to take Muslims' word on that idea. It's not a claim I'm making for them. It's a claim they make themselves. And it's a very consequential claim. So if there was a new sect of Islam - a sort of Presbyterian version let's say - that said "hey, the Quran isn't the perfect, timeless word of god. You have to allow for its errors and inconsistencies, try to overlook its bad parts and tease out the good parts", we could have honest communications. But as I'm sure you know, Muslims as a rule say no such thing. And their steadfast refusal to compromise has caused endless grief over the centuries and up to today.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes indeed, it seems that these days personal anecdotes receive outsized credibility, sigh.

It is a fact that most Muslims everywhere live by the law of the land they're in and don't cause any more trouble than people of other religions. Also, if a sweeping ban were implemented on immigration of Muslims, people like my friend would indeed be denied entry to Europe for no reason other than their religious affiliation, even though they're accepting, law-abiding, and peaceful.

The entire thread strikes me as being predicated on resentment and overgeneralizations. My life was at genuine risk when I became a religious minority in Saudi Arabia, but I know which extremists were responsible for the conditions that led to such unsafety. I do not and will not demonize most Muslims with the brush of the extremists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As is common when criticizing woke ideas, I get a lot of responses to field. I can assure you I was not dodging anything, it was just an oversight. I do think it's telling however how frequently the woke reduce themselves to personal attacks. It's not a good look.

@exchemist is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, he's a British conservative who is now a centrist merely because the politics of his country have shifted. He's not a leftist, nor is he radical in any way, yet because he doesn't want Muslims to be banned from immigrating to his country, he's now "woke"? I know that word has become so malleable and weaponized as to be practically meaningless in most serious discussions, but this smearing is still just unfortunate to see.

 

[icehorse]

It is a fact that most Muslims everywhere live by the law of the land they're in and don't cause any more trouble than people of other religions. Also, if a sweeping ban were implemented on immigration of Muslims, people like my friend would indeed be denied entry to Europe for no reason other than their religious affiliation, even though they're accepting, law-abiding, and peaceful.

The entire thread strikes me as being predicated on resentment and overgeneralizations. My life was at genuine risk when I became a religious minority in Saudi Arabia, but I know which extremists were responsible for the conditions that led to such unsafety. I do not and will not demonize most Muslims with the brush of the extremists.

As has been said, poll after poll of Europe's Muslim show that a large percentage of them want to bring Sharia to Europe. For example, roughly half the Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal.

 

[exchemist]

There are some nuances here.

These I think are pretty "pure": Iran, SA, Vatican, Israel, Afghanistan, NK, China.

Some I think are theocratic in practice, such as Pakistan.

That is absurd. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy influenced by religion but not ruled by clerics. Israel is a secular democracy, with some political influence from religious groups, as is the United States of America. Afghanistan may indeed be a theocracy, so I'll give you that one. North Korea is ruled by a secular despot who is an effective absolute monarch. China is going the same way but neither of these is ruled by religious leaders. Pakistan is a shaky democracy, but certainly not ruled by clerics. (I ignore the Vatican as it is not really a country, just St Peter's and a few adjoining streets, a total area of 0.2 square miles.)

So from your list we have possibly two theocracies: Iran (for sure) and Afghanistan probably, though I do not know what religious leader is in charge.

And then we have a load of other muslim countries: Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, other N, African countries, Jordan, the UAE, Oman.......none of which are theocracies.

So much for islam being inherently totalitarian, then.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As has been said, poll after poll of Europe's Muslim show that a large percentage of them want to bring Sharia to Europe. For example, roughly half the Muslims in the UK think homosexuality should be illegal.

I would need to examine each poll separately to form an opinion on how reliable and representative it was. Furthermore, as I said, Shari'a is Islamic law. It includes everything from fundamentals of prayer to inheritance rules, and there has been a lot of diversity in interpretations thereof for centuries. It's basically impossible to conclude exactly what "bring Shari'a to Europe" means without knowing what the Muslims answering those polls believe about Shari'a.

 

[icehorse]

@exchemist is free to correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, he's a British conservative who is now a centrist merely because the politics of his country have shifted. He's not a leftist, nor is he radical in any way, yet because he doesn't want Muslims to be banned from immigrating to his country, he's now "woke"? I know that word has become so malleable and weaponized as to be practically meaningless in most serious discussions, but this smearing is still just unfortunate to see.

What's scary is how a few foundational woke ideas have wormed their way into society.

Traditionally, immigration has been under the control of the country that immigrants want to come to. And the countries have traditionally been able to take the stance that they would accept only those immigrants that they thought would benefit their country.

This thread is a discussion of a country (Poland), that has decided it sees no benefit in allowing Muslims to immigrate. But the EU wants to force Poland to allow Muslim immigration. It seems likely to me that anyone on this thread supporting the EU is - wittingly or not - taking on board the over-simplistic, destructive "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview.

 

[Left Coast]

Can you tell me your definition of Sharia? Because to me it is explicitly antithetical to secularism.

It isn't "my definition."

Sharia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I thought that was the question. To zoom out, I'm critical of anyone who promotes theocracy, of any sort.

I can't wait!

Ok, so can you name a major sect of Islam that's not fundamentally theocratic? As I recall, that's your claim?

There are over 4 million Muslims living in the US alone. What sects are they part of? I'm not aware of a mass movement among them to turn us into a theocracy. So either you don't understand their religion or there's a conspiracy afoot.

As for living peacefully, trying to force theocracy into a secular state is NOT a peaceful act.

But they're not doing that, broadly speaking. They're just regular people.

As for talking to Muslims, I'm sorry, I don't think personal anecdotes hold a lot of water when discussing laws and policies.

Neither do sweeping generalizations, though. Yet a couple of anecdotes moght help relieve you of your overly simplistic view.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I've already allowed for variations. But there are immutable fundamentals that you seem to want to disregard. Am I understanding you correctly?

No.

I think that liberals and moderates and conservatives can all be critical of Islam. So for you to liken my post to something the dumpster fire said is to attempt to put me into some sort of political category, into which I will not agree to go.

I made a simple comparison, because it's obvious.

There are things to be known about Islam, such as the idea that the Quran is claimed to be the perfect, timeless word of god.

Like the Bible is claimed to be the perfect, timeless word of god in Christianity. Mkay, now what?

I choose to take Muslims' word on that idea. It's not a claim I'm making for them. It's a claim they make themselves. And it's a very consequential claim. So if there was a new sect of Islam - a sort of Presbyterian version let's say - that said "hey, the Quran isn't the perfect, timeless word of god. You have to allow for its errors and inconsistencies, try to overlook its bad parts and tease out the good parts", we could have honest communications. But as I'm sure you know, Muslims as a rule say no such thing. And their steadfast refusal to compromise has caused endless grief over the centuries and up to today.

All versions of fundamentalism cause "endless grief." Why the obsession with Islam?

 

[icehorse]

That is absurd. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy influenced by religion but not ruled by clerics. Israel is a secular democracy, with some political influence from religious groups, as is the United States of America. Afghanistan may indeed be a theocracy, so I'll give you that one. North Korea is ruled by a secular despot who is an effective absolute monarch. China is going the same way but neither of these is ruled by religious leaders. Pakistan is a shaky democracy, but certainly not ruled by clerics. (I ignore the Vatican as it is not really a country, just St Peter's and a few adjoining streets, a total area of 0.2 square miles.)

So from your list we have possibly two theocracies: Iran (for sure) and Afghanistan probably, though I do not know what religious leader is in charge.

And then we have a load of other muslim countries: Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, other N, African countries, Jordan, the UAE, Oman.......none of which are theocracies.

So much for islam being inherently totalitarian, then.

I tend to take a more sweeping view as to what constitutes a theocracy, so we'll have to agree to disagree. To add a little more detail, I'd say that theocracies exist to varying degrees, and a country doesn't have to be 100% theocratic to be classified as a theocracy. For example NK is led by soemone who casts himself as a demigod, no?

As you can see in the map linked to below, many countries have some form of Sharia in place. I'm happy to amend my definition and say that - IMO - anywhere Sharia is a part of the legal system, is theocratic, even if not 100% so.

Application of Sharia by country - Wikipedia

 

[icehorse]

Neither do sweeping generalizations, though. Yet a couple of anecdotes moght help relieve you of your overly simplistic view.

There are hundreds of millions of Islamists in the world. Many live in the US. Given the opportunity, Islamists will side with initiatives to insert Sharia. Perhaps this will help you shed your rose colored glasses?

Like the Bible is claimed to be the perfect, timeless word of god in Christianity. Mkay, now what?

Used to be, not so much these days.

All versions of fundamentalism cause "endless grief." Why the obsession with Islam?

Raw numbers.

 

[Left Coast]

This thread is a discussion of a country (Poland), that has decided it sees no benefit in allowing Muslims to immigrate. But the EU wants to force Poland to allow Muslim immigration. It seems likely to me that anyone on this thread supporting the EU is - wittingly or not - taking on board the over-simplistic, destructive "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview.

It's "woke" not to want to make discriminatory immigration laws based purely on someone's religion but rather on actual, evidence-based security reasons, like criminal history? Jesus Christ.

 

[Left Coast]

There are hundreds of millions of Islamists in the world. Many live in the US. Given the opportunity, Islamists will side with initiatives to insert Sharia. Perhaps this will help you shed your rose colored glasses?

But they haven't. And repeatedly insist they don't want to. So again, either it's a big conspiracy, or maybe there's more nuance (you like nuance, right?) to Islam than you want to admit.

Used to be, not so much these days.

There are still plenty of Christian fubdamentalists in the world. Right now, there are vastly more of them in the US (and in positions of power especially) than there are Muslims. But again, your obsession remains with Muslims.

Raw numbers.

Of what?

 

[icehorse]

It's "woke" not to want to make discriminatory immigration laws based purely on someone's religion but rather on actual, evidence-based security reasons, like criminal history? Jesus Christ.

It's woke to try to inflict ill-conceived multi-culturalism on countries that don't want it.

And again, you seem to want to abandon long standing immigration laws, is that correct?

 

[icehorse]

But they haven't. And repeatedly insist they don't want to. So again, either it's a big conspiracy, or maybe there's more nuance (you like nuance, right?) to Islam than you want to admit.

I'm not talking about all Muslims, I'm talking about Islamists. Do you get the distinction?

 

[Soandso]

I'm not talking about all Muslims, I'm talking about Islamists. Do you get the distinction?

Maybe you could clarify for us what the distinction is?

 

[icehorse]

There are still plenty of Christian fubdamentalists in the world

A tiny fraction compared to Islamists.

Again, there are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Islamists - Muslims who want Sharia.

There are a tiny fraction of that number of Christian fundies.

 

[Left Coast]

It's woke to try to inflict ill-conceived multi-culturalism on countries that don't want it.

And again, you seem to want to abandon long standing immigration laws, is that correct?

Not at all. I want to have immigration laws that are based on evidence rather than fear and xenophobia and ignorance. You understand that immigration laws change over time, yes? They aren't eternal.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe you could clarify for us what the distinction is?

A bit of an oversimplification: An Islamist is a Muslim who wants Sharia where they live.