Integrating Muslims in the West, what does it mean for the Ummah?

[Conscious Manipulation]

asalaamu alaykum,

 

I recently came across a report, published by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, about Muslim integration and how the West can benefit from this experience. Frustrated at how painfully slow the process of integrating Muslims has proven to be, they've made a list of recommendations to speed it up.

 

Since this is an issue that effects us, what do you think? What does integration mean to you (although ultimately it's how they define it that matters)? How does one stay Muslim yet be integrated into this society?

 

Recommendation: How to advance the Goal of integration

 

In order to encourage the process of Muslim integration and to prevent any backsliding, the following measures were recommended. Most of these recommendations are addressed to Muslim communities.

 

1. More efforts should be made in the field of Muslim education, employment and the promotion of a culture of dialogue between Muslim communities and the majority societies;

Integrating Muslim Communities in Europe and the United States

 

2. Muslims should (not) accept money from Muslim governments or other extraneous sources;

 

3. Muslims should focus more on the issues facing them in the majority societies rather than on events occurring in their countries of origin;

 

4. Muslims should engage in open discussions of issues related to identity both within their own communities and with the majority societies;

 

5. Muslims should put emphasis on citizenship and avoid supporting extremist groups, which threaten, in one form or another, the security of the country of their citizenship or residence;

 

6. Muslims should educate the wider society about their faith and their communities, engage in philanthropy, and make Muslim communities relevant and important to the welfare of the rest of the society;

 

7. Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies;

 

8. Muslims should act with more self-confidence and in support of Muslim rights by setting up media watch groups and human rights watch groups;

 

9. Muslims should engage in inter-religious dialogue and other forms of constructive communications with the followers of other faiths. Other important results of the workshop were:

1) A greater appreciation of the fact that many aspects of Muslim presence in Europe and the United States need further study;

 

2) The importance of dialogue on various dimensions of Muslim integration between the Muslims on the one hand and European and U.S. societies on the other;

 

3) Regular interaction among scholars, members of Muslim communities, and representatives of governments across the Atlantic to discuss issues of common concern and develop new ways of addressing them, thus, helping advance the goal of more harmonious interreligious relations with the integration of Muslim communities and, hence, the overall social and political stability of Europe and the United States.

[Bakar]

One word comes to mind; assimilation. Please reread your post and tell me if the same word comes to yours. It is almost Iftaar time; thereofre God willing, will go lenght at this thread.

 

afur wanaagsan

[Medley of extemporanea]

assimilation has a negative connotation in my mind (think Borg Collective )...

 

But i like integration. I think for those of us that are thinking of making these western counties our homes we need to thinking about what our place is in the society and Move towards becoming full members of the social franchise and contract.

 

the items the group listed are good and positive, maybe except number 3, it hard for people to not focus on event back home. But that’s ok if people still have connections to their country of origin; I don’t see how that could have any negative effects.

 

but “muslims†is probably too broad a group though. Like the Somali experience and how Somali’s might integrate into western society is probably very different from how Malaysians might integrate, yet both groups are muslims.

 

Item number 7, “Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societiesâ€, might be the most important. Muslims as a whole, or segments of the muslim community (different nations and races), should identify segments of the majority society that they can be associated with. Like in the USA black muslims from Africa can very easy ally themselves with the African-American community. Muslims can also find allies within business groups, labor groups, and professional associations.

 

I think muslims are giving a lot of thought to this issue of what our place should be in western society and this is very positive. I’ve even heard that some Islamic experts are forging a new field of fiqh about living as a minority in nonmuslim society.

[Mohamed nuur]

Intergaration, Assimilation whatever you want to call is not only bad for those Muslims but ultmently bad for our Great releigion of Islam,

 

Now a days we see the proplem of people claiming to be muslims and yet they have no practice of their religion.

 

To intergrate is to lose our way of life and drop the way we live right now, And to lose our way of life is to lose Islam, and to lose islam is to be a christian, no matter what religion you choose you will still be an infidel becuase you have left the god to the bad (Simply put).

 

And yeah I will never even consider becoming or calling myself an American ever, that is to lose my Somali heritage, which if i do will erase over 1000 years of somali history for me.

 

I not willing to do anything beyond say hello to them.

[Conscious Manipulation]

assimilation has a negative connotation in my mind

Integration essentially means assimilation but perhaps recognizing the negative connotation associated with it, it's better to market it as integration?

 

From what I gather of this whole talk of integration, it just seems to me that integration is just another tool the west wishes to utilize in their never ending pursuit of attempting to convince Muslims to adopt secular values, of course, with the implication that Islam has failed to provide a solution to their problems.

 

 

For example in the report published by this group, they question the role of Muslim women in society and because the role of women as defined by Islam is not in line with the dynamics of the westren way of life, the "traditional" understanding of women's role should be challenged and re-shaped. They use the term traditional when they mean Islamic, knowing very well that if they were to say what they mean Muslims would reject it. So the call to get women out into the work force (contribute to the capitalist economy) and compete with men in every sphere is clearly something against the "traditional" (i.e Islamic) understanding of gender roles therefore, the Islamic aqeedah should be excluded from defining the role of the modern Muslim woman.

 

 

Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies;

Here urging Muslims to participate in the un-Islamic political system is an attempt to force Muslims to accept the will of man over that of Allah (swt), under the pretext that Islam has failed to provide a method of protecting the interests of the Muslims and that their solution lies outside of the Islamic aqeedah. Thus Muslims should constantly look to the constitutions of their respective countries, UN resolutions, Human rights charters ect for solutions to their problems and not to Allah (swt) and the prescribed method in Islam.

 

Muslims should focus more on the issues facing them in the majority societies rather than on events occurring in their countries of origin;

In the report they talk about what they see as barriers to integration, such as the concept of Ummah. The idea of Muslims seeing themslves as belonging to one nation of believers should be discouraged among Muslims as it is hindering integration. In other words, the Islamic aqeedah should not form the basis of unity among Muslims and it should not define their relationships with respect to one another.

 

The list goes on and on and the examples are endless. One of the things that worried me (among other things) was how they associated seclusion and integration to make it seem that Muslims who refuse integrate are secluding themselves. This is clearly misleading as Islam encourages Muslims to interact with society and forbids seclusion. We, Muslims should constantly be engaged in dialog with society promoting Islamic values and ideas as alternatives to secular non-solutions to human problems. As usual though, it's their way or the highway. Either we interact with the society on their terms (integrate) or we're the problem.

[Mohamed nuur]

Almost completyely agree with the above thread,

 

Now a days, we have people like you, You are here and not the big, but the proplem for the muslims in the west is having so alled "Islamic scholars" who are paraded through cnn, fox and other networks and amost all want what is so called assimilation, for me, you are not scholar nor anyone who know anything about is lam if you profess Things like this on the media.

[Medley of extemporanea]

Conscious Manipulation, on your point that the writers of the report choose words very carefully so as not to offend the sentiments of muslims (by using integration in place of assimilation, traditional in place of islamic) is well made.

 

I disagree with you on your point that if Muslims should invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies that this by doing this they are signifying that 'islam has failed them'. You say that to do these things (invest more in social mobility and participate in the political process and find allies among the members of the majority societies) is to "look to the constitutions of their respective counties, UN resolutions, Human rights charters ect for solutions"..."and not to Allah". But the fact is that we have to live under the laws that are being made by those respective counties, the UN, Human rights charters, and others; so why should we not take part in the processes and institutions that make these laws to try and insure these laws are made with our interests in mind? The laws are going to be made anyway, why should we let only others make them when these laws are going to apply to us also? It would be fine to ignore these structures if their decisions had no consequences on our lives, but sadly they do. We should do what we can to insure that they do not effect us in any negative way. Like you said, "Muslims should constantly be engaged in dialog with society promoting Islamic values and ideas as alternatives to secular non-solutions to human problems." Part of that interaction should be to gain the influence that comes with social mobility, participation in the political process, and pursue interests enlightened by the interests of other groups in society and our values.

 

Conscious Manipulation, I see where you’re coming from, and although I have not read the report, I assume that its purpose and tone is anti-islamic. Never the less, the issue of how we are going to live as a minority in the west is one we need to discuss and understand if we are to protect our interests and promote our values for the betterment of humanity.

[Mutakalim]

How does one stay Muslim yet be integrated into this society?

 

You see, the terms integration and assimilation are not, despite the the misinformed responses of others, synonymous. Indeed, there is clear difference in meaning that has nothing whatsoever to do with the misapprehended "negative connotation". Integration, in this context, simply means providing people of different social and racial backgrounds with "equal oppurtunity" whereas assimilation means the adoption of the Mores and Ethos of the "home culture" by the minority segment of society. In other words to say that Muslims have been assimilated in North America, for instance, would mean that Muslims have espoused the cultural, ritual, and social norms of North America. On the other hand, if one says that Muslims have been integrated in the North America, then one is stating that Muslims are afforded an equal and urestricted oppurtunity, viz., social oppurtunities (i.e. work, school).

 

What does integration mean to you (although ultimately it's how they define it that matters)?

 

Do you think that words have a "private" meaning. For instance, when I ask you to hand me the scissors could I possibly "mean" the glue? This is not plausible or even feasible for that matter, because if I "meant" something else by scissors, then we would not be able to communicate aught.

 

Integration is an english word and it "means" (i.e. defintion) exactly the same to everyone. The word "integration" does not require a stipulative or essentialist definiton, rather a reportive defintion is the requiste signification. Perhaps you meant to query as to what the "concept" of integration entailed, the repercussions, implications, and ramifications as it were. As I have penned down above, integration contextually means, in sofar as minorities are of concern, the equitable provision of oppurtunity.

 

Integration essentially means assimilation but perhaps recognizing the negative connotation associated with it, it's better to market it as integration?

 

Perhaps you meant to say that the west is attempting to assimilate Muslims by integrating them. After the integration process(i.e. unrestricted and equal access to "social goods"), the west hopes that the muslims will assimilate themselves.

 

In any event, integration helps minorities more than it hinders them. As regards assimilation, it depends on one's personal belief system. As far as I know, irreligousity encourages one to re-evaluate one's values, to use a Nietzchean phrase, to better one's social and economic prospects. If one be a muslim, however, then one cannot espouse anything unislamic even if the adopting thereof is socially and/or economically advantageous.

 

I suppose the late Egyptian, Islamic revivalist, Sayid Qutb, would have protracted one to a dialogue, finding ill in the process of assimilation. In his celebrated masterpiece, Milestones or معالم ÙÙŠ الطريق, Qutb argues that to partake of an unislamic system of goverenment howsoever, is, forsooth, to challenge the Soveriengty of Allah. The concept of Uluhiyyah intimately implies that the power of Legislation and Rule belong to Allah alone, and to give this attribute to a mere mortal is a mold of putrid polytheism. Qutb correctly deduces that to follow man-made rules on everything is to worship Man, because legislation stems from one of Allah's attributes. In the western world, the laws are made by the people, for the people. To accept valueless man-made laws is inimical to Islam. Does this mean that one should not stop at red lights or stop signs as they are "man-made"? No.

 

Perhaps I should, in accordance with Wittengstein, say "back to the rough ground". A concrete example of Qutb's proposition would be voting in a "طاغوت" goverenment. According to Qutb, voting in an unislamic system of goverment is proscribed, because by voting one assents to partake in an exercise that leads to the conception of "ungodly" legislation. Moreover, if one, for instance, has voted for Senator John F. Kerry during the recent US Election, then one has consented to give the Masachussete's senator the power to "legislate" in all domains of human life. It matters not an iota, Qutb vociferously decries, what is the rationale for partaking in a goverment that decides everything that is good and bad. The "lisan al-hal" لسان الحال clearly says that Allah is a God and the US system of goverment (i.e. congress, house of representitives etc.) is a God.

 

Some scholars invoke the age-old juridical formula that "Necessity supercedes proscription" (الضرورة تبيح المحظورات). What if it is necessary that one vote so as to attain representation. If one does not have "representation", then one's rights will be swallowed by the quicksand that is the unruly american environ. They argue that Jews are well represented because of the influence of the jewish lobysists in Congress. Therefore, if a candidate promises Muslims that he will curtail acts of racial profiling and unconstitutional apprehensions, then one ought to vote for such a candidate. This is simulataneously a delicate juridal query and an intricate doctrinal enquiry.

 

In any event, a muslim never "assimilates" (note the inverted comma) into an unislamic socitey. Sometimes assimilation can lead to an unpardonable sin, viz., Shirk.

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. It is incorrect to assert that either Muslims will be assimilated or Muslims will be left behind. That is equivalent to saying, "you are either young or you are old". Clearly, this is not an exhaustive premise as you can be "middle-aged". Muslims might be integrated without being assimilated. The afore-mentioned premise commits the fallacy of false dichotomy and as such is erroneous.

[Medley of extemporanea]

Mutakallim, "Some scholars invoke the age-old juridical formula that "Necessity supercedes proscription" (الضرورة تبيح المحظورات). What if it is necessary that one vote so as to attain representation. If one does not have "representation", then one's rights will be swallowed", this is the point I was trying to make when I said "The laws are going to be made anyway, why should we let only others make them when these laws are going to apply to us also? It would be fine to ignore these structures if their decisions had no consequences on our lives, but sadly they do. We should do what we can to insure that they do not effect us in any negative way."

 

Mutakallim, thank you for clearifying the meaning of those words.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Mutakalim,

 

You always fail to understand the underlying concepts of any subject by engaging some trivial and unimportant matters. Your failing philosophy displays this incompetent impression of you! assimilation and integration are nothing but the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguestic books!

 

I understand the meaningless advocacy you wage for the secular west and its psuedo idealism, but none of those things are acceptable within the Somalis. I discussed with you a while ago about the concept of existantialism in which you insisted the existance of Allah is technically and intellectually unverifiable because your western science says so!

 

You take that argument to your mentaly imbalanced scholars as well. Such people of your likes irritate me when I see their faulty reasoning which is nothing but to pretend white man by acting as their beloved rep. agent. That is so sickening, indeed! Please let these charming people of ours enjoy here by ceasing your meaningless advocacy and smearing back our Islamic values, can you?

[NGONGE]

^^^ Heh.

 

Sometimes, when you quickly scan a piece written by someone else, you miss all the juicy bits, saaxib. Read it again and see if you’ll change your mind or strengthen your resolve.

[Mutakalim]

تضاحكت بينهم معجبا*** وشر البلية ما يضحك

NGONGE: That I am affected by divine delight as I read aspersions and ad hominems is as true as that which is red all over cannot be green, a "necessary truth".

 

I will ask the obfuscated poster to pen thoughts, to wit, ad hominems that are creative and comical. I would recommend the poster to write his dispargements in a poetic form and preferably in Arabic. You see, I procure optimal delight when I read arabic defamatory poetry or الهجاء .

 

أبت Ø´Ùتاي اليوم إلا تكلماً * بسوء٠Ùما أدري لمن أنا قائلهÙ

 

أرى لي وجهاً شوّه الله خلقه٠---- ÙÙ‚ÙبّÙØ­ من وجه٠و Ù‚ÙبّÙØ­ÙŽ حامÙلهÙ

 

The above-poet is referring to none other than himself.

 

I will mayhap say the following, after the poster pens his thoughts:

 

تجاوز قدر الهجو حتى كأنه ..باقبح ما يهجى به المرء يمدح

[Viking]

Mutakalim's response is not out of context and made sense. What's all the fuss about?

[Paragon]

Alle-ubaahne, you are a far-sighted brother. Maasha-Allaah sxb.

[Mutakalim]

Originally posted by JamaaL-11:

Alle-ubaahne, you are a far-sighted brother. Maasha-Allaah sxb.

Too empty to opine in a articulate vein are you, Good Cali? One would have thought that even you are above "endorsing" acerbic ad hominems.

 

Is this the "summum bonum" of the debate forum? Those who are willing to debate are disparged, and those who are not willing to debate applaud he who berates ungratiutously?

 

I think you like to see me exasperated beyond endurance. Or perhaps I have misconstrued your true intentions, Good Cali. In reference to a pervious exchange that we had, you used the word "plagiarize" to mean "unorginal"; I wonder what it is that you mean by "far-sighted". Is it possible that you are looking for the antonym of that word?

 

The "Baahane" character you are applauding did not so much as write anything pertaining to the subject of this thread. Please do reread his proposition once more as you will find the truth of what I am saying in its midst.

 

You always fail to understand the underlying concepts of any subject by engaging some trivial and unimportant matters.

 

This is a clear ad hominem. Insults are, indeed, the trade of the broken man. Will the poster expound the nature of these "trivial and unimportant matters". Let us peruse the rest of the post.

 

Your failing philosophy displays this incompetent impression of you!

 

Again, this does not address the subject of the thread. Why do you think that insults are a sign of "far-sighteness", Good Cali?

 

assimilation and integration are nothing but the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguestic books!

 

Finally, a statement that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Be that as it may, it is neither intelligible (i.e. comprehensible) nor intelligent (i.e. enlightening). I am confident you would agree that the phrase " the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguistic books" is nonsensical and unintelligible. I have provided the definition of Integration and Assimilation as it is used by those who make regular use of it(english speakers and writers), and as it is found in an english dictionary ( this is what "reportive defintion" means). What is "the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguistic books" suppose to mean? I must confess that I have a hard time comprehending poor writing, so can you explain the meaning thereof. Do Baahane a favor and explain to me in proper english what he means.

 

understand the meaningless advocacy you wage for the secular west and its psuedo idealism, but none of those things are acceptable within the Somalis.

 

I am still looking for anything remotely "far-sighted". If you think disparagements are a sign of farsightedness, then I will, sincerely, importune the Lord to heal you of this ailment.

 

I discussed with you a while ago about the concept of existantialism in which you insisted the existance of Allah is technically and intellectually unverifiable because your western science says so!

 

This "straw man" is irrelevant. What has this to do with this thread.

 

You take that argument to your mentaly imbalanced scholars as well. Such people of your likes irritate me when I see their faulty reasoning which is nothing but to pretend white man by acting as their beloved rep. agent. That is so sickening, indeed! Please let these charming people of ours enjoy here by ceasing your meaningless advocacy and smearing back our Islamic values, can you?

 

Ilaahay baan kugu dhaarshe ma hikmad iyo aragti baad hadalkaan ka dhadhamisay? Are these insults even relevant to what I have penned in this thread? Dastardly chicaniries are to be fulminated against not endorsed! I can only hope that you will look at this matter objectively.

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. To the intiator of this thread: I can only hope that you are different.