The best defense against dangerous radicals is - and will ever be - actually showing them better ways of living. To repress minorities so that they don't menace personal freedoms is self-defeating to the point of being ironic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The motive behind the mass Exodus of Muslims to the US from Arab countries?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
Bismillah
Submit
I want to end this silly argument once and for all because it truly is a slap in the face of the vast majority of Muslim immigrants like my father who came here for a better life and through their own making achieved it.
Is the essential argument you are making.
This book here Amazon.com: Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think (9781595620170): John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed: Books defeats the argument line by line. Not only does it encompass American Muslims, but Muslims around the world. These people who have overwhelmingly showed strong support for the West's democracy, equality, and scientific progress.
Is the essential argument you are making.
This book here Amazon.com: Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think (9781595620170): John L. Esposito, Dalia Mogahed: Books defeats the argument line by line. Not only does it encompass American Muslims, but Muslims around the world. These people who have overwhelmingly showed strong support for the West's democracy, equality, and scientific progress.
Bismillah
Submit
Yeah we have all seen how Dearborn Michigan has high cases of honor killings, infanticide, and fatwas issued against kaffirs.
Maybe Europe should try enacting some effective legislation that would integrate their Muslim populace, instead of legislation meant to offend and provoke not only the extremists but the moderate majority.
I find nothing wrong with people forming their own community if they want to live by their own way of life in principle, though. (Ignoring the "ties to terrorism" bit, which is only "alleged" and we don't know the details)
If people want to form such a community I say more power to them as long as:
1) They still obey the law of the land and don't trample anyone's rights. There is a difference between a community agreement to, say, prohibit alcohol from the premises and to agree not to consume alcohol on one hand (that's fine), but taking away someone's rights to leave the community in order to enjoy those rights is quite another.
2) In fact I just realized all of my list is covered by the first one, because I was going to say that they can even form their own communal rules as long as it's voluntary and anyone can leave at any time, etc.
This is well within anyone's rights as a citizen in a country with civil liberties. I understand the concern about radicalization but as long as they aren't inciting actual violence and so on, it's their RIGHT to do so; and rightly so.
I agree with this 100%. This is a secular government, that doesn't mean we the people must be secular. (As a side note, I just wanted to re-emphasize that "secular" does not mean atheist -- secular is just religiously neutral)
I'm an atheist but I would be appalled if our government stripped away basic rights from religious individuals like some of Europe has with their burqa bans and such nonsense. I would fight for the rights of any religious person to be able to live as they please here as long as they harm no one else's rights by doing so with as much fervor and fury as I would fight for my right to be an atheist.
Also, the tighter the fist clenches on people the more it just makes them slip through the fingers. It just makes radicalism worse, it makes it go from "I think they hate us" to "See! They're repressing us!"
I owe you 2 frubals... one for this and one for an earlier post, but I already frubal'd you earlier in this thread and have to spread 'em around first.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Our founding fathers were, for the most part, deists, not atheists. but that's a topic for another thread.
I start out with that though to show that they did have a profound respect for the rights of individuals to practice their faith. They were the grandchildren of the reformation, and that memory of bloodshed in the name of religious freedom was fresh in their minds.
I believe that Europe has grossly mishandled the growing Muslim immigration in most European countries, in a multitude of ways. But Europe also has a challenge that we don't have here in the US, and that is that it's easier for Muslims who are poorer and not as well educated to move from their home countries to European countries. Then they are housed in ghettos and slums, and start their lives off disenfranchised from Western culture.
Here in the US, most Muslims who immigrate here have some solid financial means and a higher level of education. They start off with advantages that European immigrants never had.
The Muslims I know who have immigrated here did so, not out of desperation to get the hell out of Kosovo or Khazakstan or Turkey, but because they appreciate the opportunities and freedoms that the West, and the US in particular, offer their families and themselves.
They don't WANT to change those elements of our society.
As for the rights of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, to create a community that is apart from others, that's their right to do so. As long as no one else's rights are being abused, and as long as they are abiding by the laws of the land, more power to them.
I start out with that though to show that they did have a profound respect for the rights of individuals to practice their faith. They were the grandchildren of the reformation, and that memory of bloodshed in the name of religious freedom was fresh in their minds.
I believe that Europe has grossly mishandled the growing Muslim immigration in most European countries, in a multitude of ways. But Europe also has a challenge that we don't have here in the US, and that is that it's easier for Muslims who are poorer and not as well educated to move from their home countries to European countries. Then they are housed in ghettos and slums, and start their lives off disenfranchised from Western culture.
Here in the US, most Muslims who immigrate here have some solid financial means and a higher level of education. They start off with advantages that European immigrants never had.
The Muslims I know who have immigrated here did so, not out of desperation to get the hell out of Kosovo or Khazakstan or Turkey, but because they appreciate the opportunities and freedoms that the West, and the US in particular, offer their families and themselves.
They don't WANT to change those elements of our society.
As for the rights of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, to create a community that is apart from others, that's their right to do so. As long as no one else's rights are being abused, and as long as they are abiding by the laws of the land, more power to them.
kai
ragamuffin
Do you think people need legislation to integrate Abibi? dont people just "integrate" ?what is integration after all ? Europeans arnt against integration.
I mean if the Swiss dont want Minarets then don't build them if the French don't want Burkas then don't wear them, isn't that integrating?
Surely Muslims want the Europeans to integrate into Islamic ideals and principles? Thats what Minarets and Burkas are isnt it? Islamic? i mean they are the best arnt they? Islamic ideals and principles i mean.
why wouldn't a Muslim want the country they emigrate to become more Islamic?
No its not that easy! Islam is overtly political and I think in order for a Muslim to truly integrate into western society requires huge changes in their values and identity all at the risk of being accused by other Muslims of leaving their own culture. In fact lets not beat about the bush here there are some truly insurmountable differences that will never be reconciled such as the Views on homosexuality and its easy to brush that under the carpet but its still there .
Who speaks for Islam?
by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
The findings also revealed that Muslims across the world want neither secularism nor theocracy. They want freedom, rights and democratisation. At the same time, however, they claim that society should be built upon religious Islamic values and that the shari'a (Islamic law) should be a source of law. Simply put, the majority of Muslim women and men want rights and religion, and they don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=22584&lan=en&sid=1&sp=0
That view will not aid integration into Europe will it?
Last edited:
That is a good point. Still, it can't really be addressed by curtaining people's rights.
kai
ragamuffin
Its also the right of the Swiss or the French to wish to keep their countries identity how they want it and not to be dictated to to be the perceived religion of immigrants.
Its also the right of Saudis and Egyptians or Iranians to keep their societies from being influenced by anyone else.
Apart from basic human rights a country has to be influenced by the wishes of its citizens. If say the Danes feel that Islamic tradition is alien to them they have the right to resist change just like the Saudis.
Its similar to what i have seen of British people emigrating to say Australia or Spain but wanting to create a little British enclave that's not integrating.
Of course it is. It is still far better and more effective to channel that wish into efforts of peaceful integration than into exertions of force, be it by way of law or of firepower.
After all, using force creates a stalemate at best. If people must be continuously pressured so that they won't change our supposedly valuable way of life despite actually being immersed in it, something weird is going on.
Besides, I don't think it is all that wise to borrow that specific page from the way of life of repressive regimes. The Taliban could claim a desire to keep their cultural identity and defend itself from immigrants just as easily as anyone else.
Again, the same principle applies. It is everyone's right to want to have their societies unchanged, but it just doesn't happen in practice. Even a heavily xenophobic society will see changes from one generation to the next, fortunately.
Nor is it even legitimate to actually have the goal of avoiding any and all "cultural contamination", much less acting in accord to that goal. Whatever actions one undertakes in order to protect one's desired cultural environment absolutely must be defensable in and of themselves, without appeal to a supposed right of keeping "cultural purity". Cultural purity is a chimera not worth caring about, much less defending, and certainly not by way of "otherwise" questionable actions.
It comes down to whether immigrants are citizens or not then, doesn't it? Because if they are, they have just as much say on the matter as anyone else.
Sure, it is worrisome to see people motivated to meddle with aspects of one's society that may well never regain their previous state. But really, is that all that different from other political matters? Is the cultural influence of what I assume to me a small minority of immigrants significant enough to create disconfort? More so than, say, the composition of the Higher Courts and the Parlament? I have a hard time believing in that, personally.
Do even teenagers integrate with their own families anymore?
kai
ragamuffin
Ha Ha good point , maybe migrants that dont want to conform to their "new Parents" ideals are very much like adopted teenagers.
I remember lots of arguments with my parents over my mode of dress, my associates and my language. and now i look at my teenage children and think along similar lines.
Last edited:
Good answers, but I am still disturbed by how similar the points are to those that were often used to justify, among other things, violent anti-semitism.
in daniel's vision of great monster civilization
the feet which supported the statue were made of iron and clay.
we live in a technological age called ''the iron age'' [kali yuga]
clay is what people from 3rd world countries still use.
the beast fell because the iron mixed with clay = immigration.
re; luisdante's remarks:
racism & dis'crime'nation
if an asian man in usa marries an asian he is making a discriminating choice based on culture/language/ethnicity/race
if he marries a woman instead of a man it is discriminating choice based on gender/sexual preference.
there are very subtle tones of dis'crime'nation and other heavier tones.
bottom line is nearly everyone does it, some pretend they dont, legislating righteousness or love by law [as with marriage]
hasnt ever worked in history, and making laws to protect freedom and rights take sway as much as they give.
people basically [most often] look for similarities both external [physical] and internal [emotional/psychological/spiritual]
the feet which supported the statue were made of iron and clay.
we live in a technological age called ''the iron age'' [kali yuga]
clay is what people from 3rd world countries still use.
the beast fell because the iron mixed with clay = immigration.
re; luisdante's remarks:
racism & dis'crime'nation
if an asian man in usa marries an asian he is making a discriminating choice based on culture/language/ethnicity/race
if he marries a woman instead of a man it is discriminating choice based on gender/sexual preference.
there are very subtle tones of dis'crime'nation and other heavier tones.
bottom line is nearly everyone does it, some pretend they dont, legislating righteousness or love by law [as with marriage]
hasnt ever worked in history, and making laws to protect freedom and rights take sway as much as they give.
people basically [most often] look for similarities both external [physical] and internal [emotional/psychological/spiritual]
Last edited:
Or perhaps the mix of iron and clay = iron subjugating and oppressing the clay
kai
ragamuffin
food for thought indeed.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As I stated in an earlier post, I think the Muslims who have immigrated to Europe over the past forty years or so differ greatly from the Muslims who have immigrated to the US. Generally speaking, the demographics differ a lot.
The problems in Europe are due largely to poor planning by European countries. I mean, you can't have extremely lenient immigration policies and huge social programs running side by side with these policies, and expect your society not to be impacted by large groups of immigrants taking advantage of these policies and systems.
Then to add insult to their short sightedness, the knee jerk reactions like banning burkas and minarets have been the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a campfire. Talk about a series of counter productive measures! Let's see...
1. Allow very liberal immigration.
2. Fund social programs which do not encourage integration.
3. Build whole neighborhoods of public housing and give years of welfare to these immigrants, aiding and abetting (in a perverse way) their alienation from Western mores and values.
4. Act surprised when they cling to what is familiar and dear to them.
5. Act more surprised when their birthrate surpasses the native European birthrate and, encouraged by such generous social programs, they bring more family to their new country.
6. Ban burkas and minarets. Ever so effective.
7. Act surprised when they are angered by this infringement of their basic values - after subsidizing them for years.
Here in the US, I simply don't see Muslims clinging to "the old country." The Muslims I know absolutely LOVE living in the United States - working hard to build their careers in this "land of opportunity." Without exception, the Muslims I know are hard working business owners and community leaders and they contribute positively to their communities.
That being said, I live in the South and we simply don't have inner city mosques or enclaves of poorer Muslims, so I have no reference point for the activities of those groups.
The problems in Europe are due largely to poor planning by European countries. I mean, you can't have extremely lenient immigration policies and huge social programs running side by side with these policies, and expect your society not to be impacted by large groups of immigrants taking advantage of these policies and systems.
Then to add insult to their short sightedness, the knee jerk reactions like banning burkas and minarets have been the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a campfire. Talk about a series of counter productive measures! Let's see...
1. Allow very liberal immigration.
2. Fund social programs which do not encourage integration.
3. Build whole neighborhoods of public housing and give years of welfare to these immigrants, aiding and abetting (in a perverse way) their alienation from Western mores and values.
4. Act surprised when they cling to what is familiar and dear to them.
5. Act more surprised when their birthrate surpasses the native European birthrate and, encouraged by such generous social programs, they bring more family to their new country.
6. Ban burkas and minarets. Ever so effective.
7. Act surprised when they are angered by this infringement of their basic values - after subsidizing them for years.
Here in the US, I simply don't see Muslims clinging to "the old country." The Muslims I know absolutely LOVE living in the United States - working hard to build their careers in this "land of opportunity." Without exception, the Muslims I know are hard working business owners and community leaders and they contribute positively to their communities.
That being said, I live in the South and we simply don't have inner city mosques or enclaves of poorer Muslims, so I have no reference point for the activities of those groups.
the global population is near 7 billion officailly
some good thinkers on other 4ums agree with me its more like 8.
MIT computer nodel study which accounted for specie preservation of wild animal species as an integral part of the biosystem stated back around 1971 that
the maximum human population of earth is 3.1 billion ... thats the absolute max before biosystems break down.
so muslim immigration isnt so much the issue as the imoending displacement of people and animals is.
people are being displaced by major climatic changes
due to deforestation
immigration will increase as refugees flee badly affected areas
economic immigrants usa has had for deccades since slavery was outlawed
this thread is looking at a cause not the source of the problem
one at the top of the UN agenda waaay back in the 1970s when neil young sang
'look at mother nature on the run'
since then ppl forgot that pop is the root cause of all the symptoms
mass-extinction will result from inaction.
some good thinkers on other 4ums agree with me its more like 8.
MIT computer nodel study which accounted for specie preservation of wild animal species as an integral part of the biosystem stated back around 1971 that
the maximum human population of earth is 3.1 billion ... thats the absolute max before biosystems break down.
so muslim immigration isnt so much the issue as the imoending displacement of people and animals is.
people are being displaced by major climatic changes
due to deforestation
immigration will increase as refugees flee badly affected areas
economic immigrants usa has had for deccades since slavery was outlawed
this thread is looking at a cause not the source of the problem
one at the top of the UN agenda waaay back in the 1970s when neil young sang
'look at mother nature on the run'
since then ppl forgot that pop is the root cause of all the symptoms
mass-extinction will result from inaction.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
One doesn't need to live in a theocracy to have religious freedom. Muslims should enjoy the same rights that all other religions do in the west. If you ban burkas, then ban women wearing head coverings as found in some traditional Christian churches. If you put a ban on minarets on mosques, then no more bell towers on churches. Putting bans on just Islamic values is devaluing to Islam, when you don't place the same types of bans on other religions.