‘Muslims need to assimilate into Europe’

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

A heavy winter coat/jacket can be as much of a 'security risk' as anything else, in terms of concealing weapons.

I fail to see the point behind requiring a face to be visible (in the context of a Burqa) during routine life - if there is a security threat and certain suspects are being hunted, and their descriptions available, then by all means give security officials the power to stop and identify women in Burqa's, or even pass a law that allows LEA's to announce temporary restrictions on any facial coverings, in the manner of temporary restrictions like curfews.

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

Islam teaches Muslims to obey the law of the land they live in.

The 'obeying the law of the land' does not automatically mean 'adopting local religious and cultural practices'.

 

[JayAtl]

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...

ahh great questions asked . First -My notion is that they know that they take subtle advantage of the laws and attitudes of Christian nation ( Europe and US more precisely ) and won't feel the repercussions as much ....

Second, Muslims in India see themsleves as Indians first as a majority( not religion over country). In Europe it is fashionable for majority of Muslims to demean their country of residence ( they look upon it as “ just being a resident). Now I should say- this is my experience from travelling in europe. and as I stated previously, much of it coming from UK ( its scary the amount of hatred and blatant what I call " terroristic statments" coming out of there, Leeds takes the cake LOL)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

As I said, the laws must be followed in a democratic society, whether good or bad, but people must also have the right to campaign against laws and point out where they are 'bad' and promote injustice and inequality.

 

[Soumitra]

I feel that westerners don't like conspicuous display of religion. Keep your religion within the home and mosque/church/temple. If you don't flaunt your religious identity then no one will have any problem. If you see a hindu man or christian man on the street then you will not probably guess his religion at one glance. The same is however not true for a muslim man or woman who will be more conspicuous because of long beard, skull cap or a burqa.
You will not find many news stories of hindus or jew feeling discriminated in predominently christian Europe or U.S. but there are plenty of stories regarding the clashes between Muslims and Europeans. And it is not as if the Hindu or Jew women are wearing bikinis on the street.
Always remember the saying When in Rome do as Romans do.

 

[Doctor09]

As I said, the laws must be followed in a democratic society, whether good or bad, but people must also have the right to campaign against laws and point out where they are 'bad' and promote injustice and inequality.

its everyone's right to campaign against law he does not like ............

 

[ApparentRaceTraitor]

If you were born there...or if you have been naturalized..Its as much your country as anyone else's and above all nobody dictates who i want to believe in and what i want to wear and what food i want to eat..Thats for me to decide as all this effects my life and nobody else's so why anybody else should have a problem?



---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 PM ----------

Buddy, this covers far more than what we eat or wear, I hardly see how eating or wearing something can affect anyone else (except of course if that individual is a hardcore redneck from Alabama). On the other hand if an aspect of the culture of Person A who lives in Country B is contrary to the beliefs of that country, umm say that A believes in shamanism, and as a result he practices arcane rituals involving sacrificing chihuahuas, while people in Country B believe in animal rights, you see how that conflicts? I admit, not the most accurate of examples, but the best I can come up with while I'm in class right now. Feel free to throw in your pov.

 

[JayAtl]

A heavy winter coat/jacket can be as much of a 'security risk' as anything else, in terms of concealing weapons is concerned.

I fail to see the point behind requiring a face to be visible (in the context of a Burqa) during routine life - if there is a security threat and certain suspects are being hunted, and their descriptions available, then by all means give security officials the power to stop and identify women in Burqa's, or even pass a law that allows LEA's to announce temporary restrictions on any facial coverings, in the manner of temporary restrictions like curfews.

.

Such laws are put in place to best address the most critical of secruity issues not the odds and ends of it. a man wearing a trenchcoat can be identified by face. a burqa covers it... this the bane of their contention. it's it their land, their laws . wear a trenchcoat like cover if you want...but a burqa ceases to be a burqa if you dont have the face covered. It during " routine" life that these terroists blow you up! its happening so frequently that it is a concern during " routine" life.

But I have to ask, why is the real secruity concerns of the majority in this case less than the need to wear a burqa? and of course the age old adage remains--- those nations are not islamic in nature, don't go and live off it if you have these hang ups. before you decided to migrate understand their natinal fiber..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Laws are put in place to best address the most critical of secruity issues not the odds and ends of it. a man wearing a trenchcoat can be identified by face. a burqa covers it... this the bane of their contention. it's it their land, their laws . wear a trenchcoat like cover if you want...but a burqa ceases to be a burqa if you dont have the face covered.

Faces can be disguised/partially covered through wearing 'hoodies', growing/applying facial hair, facial paint, glasses/sun-glasses etc.

The security issues related to the Burqa, outside of an active conflict zone such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, will continue to exist via other means of 'disguise' as I pointed out, and therefore the Burqa does not pose a unique security issue in Europe/US as you are making it out to be.

But I have to ask, why is the real secruity concrens of the majority in this case less than the need to wear a burqa? and of course the age old adage remains--- those nations are not islamic in nature, don't go and live off it if you have these hang ups. before you decided to migrate understand their natinal fiber..

The majority at one point also supported slavery and segregation, and many Muslims in Europe against bans on the headscarf/burqa are not 'immigrants' - they were born and raised in those nations, so your 'age old adage' remains as preposterous and flawed as it has always been, and this 'age old adage' remains a means of avoiding discussion, rather than justifying the positions its proponents support.

 

[dawud123]

Why at this time we needed to do a seminar on SECULARISM in KU... BECAUSE America wants us (the muslim countries, especially Egyptians) to consider the Turkey as a roll model for us. They are afraid that the Arab springs will go for the Islamic System.

 

[JayAtl]

Faces can be disguised/partially covered through wearing 'hoodies', growing/applying facial hair, facial paint, glasses/sun-glasses etc.

The security issues related to the Burqa, outside of an active conflict zone such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, will continue to exist via other means of 'disguise' as I pointed out, and therefore the Burqa does not pose a unique security issue in Europe/US as you are making it out to be.

The majority at one point also supported slavery and segregation, and many Muslims in Europe against bans on the headscarf/burqa are not 'immigrants' - they were born and raised in those nations, so your 'age old adage' remains as preposterous and flawed as it has always been, and this 'age old adage' remains a means of avoiding discussion, rather than justifying the positions its proponents support.

outside conflict zones? the whole world is a conflict zone as indictive of the many terror plots in various countries. and IF wearing a hoodi makes it a risk to the level where innocent civilians are targeted in the name of religion to be blown up-- they too will be banned. Just as liquids over a certain amount are banned in airports or parking cars in times square is banned or buying fertilizers over X grade is banned for farmers (happen to be used by " white christain farmers as a majority" ) or This is medium used by terrorists and it is banned. just happens to be used mostly by muslim women...

the law makers are not at fault-- it’s the perpetrators who have used this medium much too often are at fault.

You could be born a jew and choose to wear a grab that covers your face and head and top to toe and you won't be allowed to wear it per such laws.

Btw- slavery and segregation were not secruity concerns it was racial superiority...to eqaute thoseto banning clothing is a far stretch.

 

[Kazhugu]

I must say, i agree with superkaif bhai's posts. we need to be careful in the usage of the word 'assimilation'. i was not born in America, I only immigrated here about 9 years ago, but i respect it completely, I have total respect for its constitution & its laws, & would never impose my religious beliefs over anything that violates the constitution/law of this country. That's pretty much what I think.

that is not assimilation...you are just a good citizen.....you can still be a good citizen and isolated.....assimilation is growing a respect to the local culture, not trying to impose your own laws/culture on them while maintaining your individual culture or adopting the local one if you feel that is good....

 

[Kazhugu]

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.

respecting laws,constitution comes under your duty when you get the visa for that country...

assimilation is a voluntary process different from the above mentioned mandatory duty...

assimilation is learning to respect the local culture and stop stuffing your own culture/law on them.....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

outside conflict zones? the whole world is a conflict zone as indictive of the many terror plots in various countries.

The whole world is not a 'conflict zone' in the sense of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - and the best means of preventing terrorist attacks remains pre-emption - stopping them before the perpetrators have a chance to actually launch them, and Burqa or no Burqa is not going to stop that.

and IF wearing a hoodi makes it a risk to the level where innocent civilians are targeted in the name of religion to be blown up-- they too will be banned. Just as liquids over a certain amount are banned in airports or parking cars in times square is banned or buying fertilizers over X grade is banned for farmers (happen to be used by " white christain farmers as a majority" ) or This is medium used by terrorists and it is banned. just happens to be used mostly by muslim women...

Neither wearing a hoodi, nor wearing a Burqa increase security risks - as I pointed out, weapons can be hidden under all manner of 'Western clothing', and faces disguised using all manner of techniques - your argument is a slippery slope to mandatory nudity in all places

the law makers are not at fault-- it’s the perpetrators who have used this medium much too often are at fault.

The law makers are indeed at fault, for enacting laws that have little to no effect on public safety and security, and merely feed on xenophobia and prejudice.

You could be born a jew and choose to wear a grab that covers your face and head and top to toe and you won't be allowed to wear it per such laws.

The religion being affected is not the problem - the arguments justifying such restrictions on clothing, as you have made, are the problem.

Btw- slavery and segregation were not secruity concerns it was racial superiority...to eqaute thoseto banning clothing is a far stretch.

For those subjected to slavery and segregation these were certainly 'security' concerns, and in fact far worse than the current threat from terrorism, in that millions were treated in such a depraved and inhumane manner.

---------- Post added at 01:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

respecting laws,constitution comes under your duty when you get the visa for that country...

assimilation is a voluntary process different from the above mentioned mandatory duty...

And that is what I have already pointed out - I take it we agree there.

assimilation is learning to respect the local culture and stop stuffing your own culture/law on them.....

"stuffing your own culture/law on them" would be something equally applicable on those already residing in the nation one immigrates to, and therefore would mean that native residents respect the cultural and religious beliefs of the immigrant residents, so long as they do not conflict with the nations laws - that does not preclude the immigrant or native residents from campaigning against proposed or enacted laws if they disagree with them, as long as this is done in a constitutional manner.

 

[JayAtl]

- and the best means of preventing terrorist attacks remains pre-emption - .

My version says- This law(s) are a premeptive strike against the most favoured form delivery mechanism for suicide bombers.

and all though brought this into the conversation....

bringing in slaves from africa was not because they thought the africans would rise and be a secruity concern across continents.

segegration was not secruity concern becuse to be a " secruity" concren , it has to be shown to be one... while burqa is shown to be one plenty times over... you get what I mean? segregration was result of slavery ...which in turn was due to? false sense of racial superiority!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My version says- This law(s) are a premeptive strike against the most favoured form delivery mechanism for suicide bombers.

It isn't a good means of 'preemption against suicide bombers' at all - a suicide bombers vest can be hidden under a coat/jacket etc.