‘Muslims need to assimilate into Europe’

[fd24]

I would argue that 'assimilation' should be defined as respecting the constitution, systems and processes in place in a nation that one lives in.

However, most democratic political systems also allow for 'amendments to the constitution' and 'changes to existing laws, systems and processes' through constitutionally defined means - so while one should respect existing laws and the constitution, that does not mean that one cannot advocate and campaign, legally and constitutionally, for changes to the existing constitution and laws.

'Adopting native cultural and society norms' should not be considered an essential part of 'assimilation' in the context we are using. Wearing a burqa, hijab, headscarf, turban etc. (or not) should not be considered as 'alien' or damaging to a nation where the socio-cultural norms are more liberal and non-religious. That said, refusing to remove a Burqa/face covering in order for identification documents to be made definitely falls in the category of not respecting local laws and processes.

Agree. Amendments may be required in the USA but in the UK there isnt a need as the constitution is unwritten - and there are and have been examples where for example sikhs that have wanted to join the police or fire services have been allowed to wear their turbans hence its now the norm and accepted

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

just one question.....if the europrans go to soudi an the likes and flaunt their cultur would the soudi govt accept it?

Saudi Arabia is not a democratic society or system, so the comparison is not good at all.

A better example would be a democratic Pakistan - hypothetically, Europeans who choose to immigrate to Pakistan should be free to dress as they see fit (since I am unaware of any legal clothing restrictions ala Saudi Arabia), but that might in turn prompt religious groups and conservatives to campaign for laws restricting the kinds of clothing that can be worn in public. If such a measure succeeds, democratically, then those living in Pakistan should respect the law and follow it, but at the same time they should also be allowed to legally and constitutionally campaign against overturning said laws, or any others they disagree with.

 

[53fd]

Let us not talk about the state of minorities in India, it is not the topic of discussion here.

 

[Doctor09]

i think it should go two ways ... anyone muslim, hindu or sikh living in other country must respect the law of that land and dont go against it but on the other hand that country should also respects the beliefs of these muslims, hindus or sikhs ...........
there should be no restriction on the freedom of religion ....

 

[Ambitious449]

i think it should go two ways ... anyone muslim, hindu or sikh living in other country must respect the law of that land and dont go against it but on the other hand that country should also respects the beliefs of these muslims, hindus or sikhs ...........
there should be no restriction on the freedom of religion ....

Exactly my words

 

[Safriz]

Cheapest post of the day. Where in the article does it encourage women to flaunt their cleavage ?

and thats the most frusterating part...read the article 10 times and none of you can come up with one single simple definition of "Assimilation"...can you?

and believe it or not...assimilation means exactly what i said...anything other than that wont make any difference to the likes of whoever wrote this article,or whoever was the source...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i think it should go two ways ... anyone muslim, hindu or sikh living in other country must respect the law of that land and dont go against it but on the other hand that country should also respects the beliefs of these muslims, hindus or sikhs ...........

there should be no restriction on the freedom of religion ....

The last line, in Pakistan at least, is in conflict with the first. Pakistan's constitution legally discriminates against non-Muslims and Ahmadis and restricts their 'freedom of religion', in the case of Ahmadi's at least.

 

[Safriz]

i think it should go two ways ... anyone muslim, hindu or sikh living in other country must respect the law of that land and dont go against it but on the other hand that country should also respects the beliefs of these muslims, hindus or sikhs ...........
there should be no restriction on the freedom of religion ....

if the law of the land forbids me from wearing head scarf...an action which is totally private and in no way effects any other human or creature...then i have the right to break this type of law,as it defies reason and common sense..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

if the law of the land forbids me from wearing head scarf...an action which is totally private and in no way effects any other human or creature...then i have the right to break this type of law,as it defies reason and common sense..

You have the right to 'break a law', but then you do so knowing that you will face the legal consequences of breaking the law.

Far better to campaign and advocate in favor of repealing such a law, and perhaps 'break the law' as a sign of protest in the course of such a campaign.

 

[JayAtl]

I would argue that 'assimilation' should be defined as respecting the constitution, systems and processes in place in a nation that one lives in.

However, most democratic political systems also allow for 'amendments to the constitution' and 'changes to existing laws, systems and processes' through constitutionally defined means - so while one should respect existing laws and the constitution, that does not mean that one cannot advocate and campaign, legally and constitutionally, for changes to the existing constitution and laws.

'Adopting native cultural and society norms' should not be considered an essential part of 'assimilation' in the context we are using. Wearing a burqa, hijab, headscarf, turban etc. (or not) should not be considered as 'alien' or damaging to a nation where the socio-cultural norms are more liberal and non-religious. That said, refusing to remove a Burqa/face covering in order for identification documents to be made definitely falls in the category of not respecting local laws and processes.

we are back on this debate ( and it drives me bonkers ). You have seen terrorist use burqa's to blow up innocent civilians , in civilains areas now much tooooooooooo often. If they were restricted to doing so only on aircrafts or govt buildings or military cantonments then your statement would hold some weight. i.e. enforce no burqa laws only when secruity is at risk and in those specific areas.

But because they do it in the common streets- why should someone not consider it a secruity risk period and act proactively? I mean who insulted the culture and made it into a secruity issue? not the ones who are issuing the laws against it.. its the ones who forced the legislative body to put forth such laws through their own acts...

the burqa concept is not new, pray tells us why it was not an issue or afterthought for decades and decades? surely not because europeans loved islam...rather because it was nevera secruity risk back then.

 

[Pakistanisage]

As they say " When in Rome, do what Romans do". Learn to blend in with the local Population. If Muslims immigrate to the West they must learn to adopt western customs ( as long as there is no conflict with their religious dictates ). Islam teaches Muslims to obey the law of the land they live in.

 

[53fd]

The last line, in Pakistan at least, is in conflict with the first. Pakistan's constitution legally discriminates against non-Muslims and Ahmadis and restricts their 'freedom of religion', in the case of Ahmadi's at least.

In case of non-Ahmedi non-Muslims, they can do everything a Muslim can do, except becoming a PM/President. In case of Ahmedis, it is the same case, except that I believe Pakistan went a step ahead, constitutionally declaring them as non-Muslims. Otherwise, I don't see any difference between the case of Ahmedis & non-Ahmedi non-Muslims. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The situation could be bettered no doubt, & I fully support the rights of non-Muslims & Ahmedis to further their development in Pakistan, but I still maintain Pakistan is one of the most moderate Muslim/Islamic nations out there. If not one of the most, it is certainly better than a lot of Muslim nations in the world.

 

[Doctor09]

The last line, in Pakistan at least, is in conflict with the first. Pakistan's constitution legally discriminates against non-Muslims and Ahmadis and restricts their 'freedom of religion', in the case of Ahmadi's at least.

1- Pakistan is an Islamic state according to our constitution its not secular
2- i mentioned they should respect the law of country and respect the law , dont go against it and in Ahmadi's case its the law
3- i am not saying law is good or bad but i am just telling a thing .. as in west they ban hijab so its their law and they said that Muslims follow this in their country it is same as Ahmedi case in Pakistan .... so law may be good or bad
4- but there is another rule which people follow and that is : its their land their land so if you want to live here you have to follow law
so i think that thinks are not as simple as we think

 

[BATMAN]

Again, what does 'assimilation' mean in this context?

Without defining it, how can one argue for or against it?

This thread is nothing but another hate Muslim throwup.

If Muslims can assimilate in hindu (180° opposite to Islam) state than why can't they assimilate in a Christian state...

 

[JayAtl]

In case of non-Ahmedi non-Muslims, they can do everything a Muslim can do, except becoming a PM/President. In case of Ahmedis, it is the same case, except that I believe Pakistan went a step ahead, constitutionally declaring non-Muslims. Otherwise, I don't see any difference between the case of Ahmedis, & non-Ahmedi non-Muslims. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The situation could be bettered no doubt, & I fully support the rights of non-Muslims & Ahmedis to further their development in Pakistan, but I still maintain Pakistan is one of the most moderate Muslim/Islamic nations out there. If not one of the most, it is certainly better than a lot of Muslim/Islamic nations in the world.

is there not a non- muslim additional tax rate? and I thought non muslims could not run for higher offices which were not limited to PM/ President.