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

[Medley of extemporanea]

interesting thing, today on cspan Newt Gingrich (once leader of the Republican party in the House of Representatives; that’s like the house of commons for those in the UK) was talking about the need for immigrants to be assimilated into American society and American values. He wants Republican to make this a goal now that they are a majority in the US government.

 

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041108-124616-9353r.htm

 

video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04110804_gopac.rm

[Alle-ubaahne]

Walaal vicking,

 

The issue of voting is generaly considered to be an impermissible one, unless otherwise there is an important maslaxa or necessity for the Ummah. I can hardly relate or depend on to sh. Qartawi's opinion on voting, especially in countries of non-sharia laws, because there are clear indications from the Quran that warn the consequences for taking part of Taquut; anything other than Allah.

 

I can reffer you many Islamic books that covered a great deal of political participation in an unislamic systems, but check this site, www.islaam.com and go to lectures, scroll down to the speakers list, then click Salim Morgan, the title of the lecture is "Islamic Political Process". I find very interesting how the shiekh is grounding his evidences on the issue of voting in America.

 

enjoy the lecture, bro/sis.

[Paragon]

Alle-ubaahne, shukran for the link brother.

 

Viking, I wrote about the meaning of ‘integrated individuals are those who study’ and how relevant the phrase is to the new report's suggestions. And in a nutshell nothing was misunderstood.

 

You are right, I didn't even try to write about definitions again. I have done it once and I thought that was enough.

[Baashi]

So voting in the non-Muslim polities is Haram according to Islamic tradition after all! Is that it? If affirmative, can then one extrapolate from this that mere living among unbelievers are also wrong. I’m ignorant about sharia (there I admitted) and I won’t use my cilmi-dhegood to speculate matters of larger importance but I gotta tell u folks this won’t sit well with me (Not only did I vote but I was encouraging others to vote)...tell me otherwise plz. Where's Nur?

 

Ngonge, you seem to be saying that we don’t have alternative but to integrate before we are forced to assimilate. Now, how do we do that without compromising our Islamic believes? Don’t you think we have already integrated with the society?

[NGONGE]

Baashi,

I’m sure you’ll agree that merely residing in a country does not equal integration. There are many Muslims who have integrated into these western societies (there are many who have been fully assimilated - See Ayan Hirsi). However, there is a large number of Muslims who live, pay taxes, work and study in these western societies but refuse to integrate and are forever pining for “homeâ€.

 

For instance, let us look at our own Somali communities in the West (or anywhere else for that matter), we seem to live in an isolated bubble. Many expect all the benefits; equal rights and advantages of living in such a society yet refuse to mingle amongst their fellow “citizensâ€. Integration to them seems to mean living in these lands and abiding by their laws. Whenever questions are raised, queries made or clarifications requested, they withdrew back into their shells and start citing the fairy tales of racism, bigotry and prejudice!

 

There is a conflict between Islam and the western way of life. However, it seems that most Muslims are either “moderators†who call for total submission or “traditionalists†who insist on fitting the square pegs of their old habitats into the round holes of their current ones. The moderators welcome and encourage integration, sometimes, they come across as too eager for anyone’s liking. At other times, their message seems to be one of full assimilation with the added implication that they approve of some minor dilutions of our faith if that would help in speeding the “integration†process!

 

The traditionalists are no better; they’re the louder and more respected of the two groups. Their message is clear: do not change anything, let the world fit around us! The additional problem here is that culture and religion seem to overlap and many don’t know where one begins and the other ends! The traditionalists are conservative and strong willed. They don’t discuss anything because, as I’ve often seen, it’s either wrong to do so or it’s HARAM. They dismiss any that question this predicament as either stray or “brainwashedâ€. They (rightly) speak of the problems and Islamic rules regarding infidels and kuffars. Nonetheless, they hardly ever adjust their words to fit-in with the environment they live in. Surely a Mullah in Saudi Arabia talking about the dangers of associating with infidels is not equal to one in Paris doing the same! The Saudi Mullah realises that he’s talking to a Muslim audience in a predominantly Muslim country. The Paris Mullah on the other hand, is talking to a Muslim audience in a country where his listeners are a minority. However, in many cases, he would not adjust his words or accompany them with qualifications and conditions. Instead, he’ll repeat the same stance of the Saudi Mullah! Such sermons for example, though they seem irrelevant to the topic, contribute to the convolution of this “integration†issue. How do you integrate with infidels?

 

Another example of the reluctance of Muslims to “integrate†can be seen in the case of the Dutch film director that has been killed recently. He was anti-Islam, he insulted Muslims, the Koran and our beloved prophet (SAW). A Muslim killed him. Most Muslims either, whooped and hollered at his demise, or, kept quiet about the whole thing thus giving the impression of tacit approval. This was no Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi! This was a non-believer who criticised a religion. He did what non-believers often do. The “Muslim†reply was harsh, savage and probably not Islamic. I say probably, in case I’m wrong. Though I’d be surprised if his murder was confirmed to be legal in an Islamic sense.

 

A further example to quote is the cases of the schoolgirls in the UK. These girls go to schools that permit Islamic “dressâ€. The school’s interpretation of the Islamic Hijab has been reached after consultation with Islamic bodies and authorities in the UK. You, I, and most readers on this website will probably disagree with it (since this Hijaab is none other than the Pakistani shalwar khamees), however; this is what some Muslims have informed the schools of what an acceptable Islamic Hijab to be like. The girls decided to ignore the school’s rules and wear a “jilbaab†instead. The schools naturally and in the interests of discipline and uniformity, refused them entry into school grounds. The girls boycotted the schools, aided and abetted by their parents and encouraged by the UK Muslim Association! Some parts of the press are using this case as an example of Muslims refusing to integrate!

 

I believe such cases and unnecessary conflicts will eventually lead to the introduction of laws that force us all to be assimilated into these societies. For when we kill any non-believer who criticises our religion instead of engaging with him and inviting him to embrace our faith, we display clear signs of refusing to integrate. Or, when we fight schools who have already shown willingness to accommodate and accept our religious obligations, instead of debating with them and showing them the diversity and intricacies of our religion and original cultures, we, again, display signs of refusing to integrate and fuel our host’s xenophobic inclinations.

 

Maybe at this point, and after what seems like a long waffle, I need to finally explain my understanding of the meaning of integration. Integration to me means living peacefully side by side with your neighbours and taking advantage of all the opportunities available to you without alienating others as a result of opinions and attitudes borne out of doubt, suspicion and hearsay. It is having the ability to fully practise and spread your faith without forcing others into accepting your religious views. It is the ability to accept fair criticism and denounce unfair disparagement by clarifying and explaining your faith and viewpoints without having to resort to accusations and unfair criticisms of your own. More importantly, integration, as I see it, means accepting these lands as your home and working towards changing attitudes and outlooks through your good deeds, Islamic mannerisms and superior message.

 

These arguments of course, only apply to Muslims who live in the West and intend or have made these Western countries their permanent abodes. For such Muslims integration is a must, or else, they’ll soon face the dreaded prospect of total assimilation.

[Mutakalim]

Nomads

 

In any academic and formal discussion, it is imperative that there be a definition and conception agreed to by all parties. Analysis requires that one analyze the words before one commences to analyze the "relationship" between the concept of the words. I will once more reiterate (bear with me) the meaning of these two words in this "context":

 

Assimilation

 

The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture.

Source: Webster's Dictionary

 

Integration

 

The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary

 

The point I intially made still stands: the terms are not synonyms. There is a causal relationship(integration, the cause; assimilation, the effect), but the two concepts cannot be used interchangeably. Again, this is not to say that there is no relationship between the concepts of integration and assimilation.

 

What is the rationale behind integrating a minority? Is integration an "end-in-itself" or is it a means to another end, namely, assimilation?

 

Integration, it seems, more often than not leads to assimilation. However, it does not not always lead to assimilation.

 

There is no doubt that the West desires that muslims be assimilated. In his controversial book, The Clash of Civilizations , Hunnigton delinates that there needs must be a unbreakable cohesion among the constituents of a civilization if that civilization is to attain supremacy. In other words, Muslims that live in Western socities will undermine the eventual "clash of civilizations" if they do not assimilate (espouse the self-same belief system of the west). As some Nomads have already mentioned, when muslims resist to assimilate, the goverment actively "coerces" them to assimilate (the French Ban on Hijabs). The whole facsade of the tolerance of "multiculturlism" and "diversity" is a mere euphemism. Diversity is that which the western society upholds, not the beliefs and practices of Humankind.

 

It is quite evident that even many so-called Muslims have been assimilated without goverment coercsion. Unfortunately, I think 4th and 5th generation muslims in west will almost definately be assimalted, illa maa raxima rabbii , except when my Lord bestows His mercy.

 

We should not look at "integration" with extreme pessimism and cynicism; instead, we should be catiously optimistic about the results it will have on our creed. The only way a Muslim will survive this "ruse" or "strategem" is by grasping what Allah refers to as "Al-curwatul wuthqaa" or the "truthful handhold" which is the true islamic caqeedah.

 

In the quran there are many verses that speak about subterfuges of this nature; Wa lan tardaa cankal yahuudu walannasaaraa xatta tattabica millatahum , Never will the Jews or Christians be pleased with you till you follow their religion. Insha Ar-Rahiim, if we hold on to the truthful handhold (one has to actively learn about the religon to survive), then Allah will endow us with the spiritual and material "mechanisms".

 

Baashi:- Yes, I read a whole range of islamic literature. Although my specialty and "love" is Islamic Philosophy, I have always taken the liberty to read all Islamic scholars regardless of their camp of articulation (i.e. school of thought) and setting (i.e. time and place).

 

With respect to your concern about voting, voting in an unislamic goverment is impermissible. Sayyid Qutb did not believe that voting could ever be permissible. There is no actual "necessity" to vote.

 

Some contemporary and modern muslim scholars state that there is a necessity to vote. In democratic systems, only those who have "representation" will be safe-guarded. However, this is not entirely true because even if Muslims are not "represented" they will not be collectively mistreated. For instance, there will not be a mass rounding-up of Muslims if they do not vote. Given that political inactivity is not a "life-threatning" scenario anymore than political particiption, there is no real necessity to vote.

 

Whilst I believe that by voting Muslims will be able to mollify or lessen the friction they experience, it is not "necessary". One can only act in opposition to the Divine Injunctions when there is no other way out. Besides, as Muslims we are not suppose to always feel "comfortable" in this world. The Prophet, Peace be Upon Him, once said (to paraphrase) that "Addunyaa sijnul mu'min wa jannatul kaafir" , This World is a prison for the believer and a Paradise for the Unbelievers.

 

One should not vote just to fix a mere inconvenience such as racism and the like.

 

With Salaams

PK

 

P.S. I have lived in North America for 23 years. I have not voted even once.

[Baashi]

Ngonge (if u don’t mind yaa Raami),

I’m with you on this one sxb. I gotta tell you Ngonge you are one of the few nomads in this site that I enjoy reading their thoughts. Simple, articulate, eloquent, and to the point, some of your posts are more than awesome sxb. Plz contribute more, if you would, in Debate section of the forum.

 

Mutakalim,

Thank you sxb. I think I learned something today because of you. Brother Salafi Dacwa is sending me some material on the subject. When he does, I will educate myself on the matter and I will get back and contribute my thoughts on this. As of now, I’m convinced (opinion not deen) that voting is a necessity for us. I can’t recall but I’ve read somewhere that the Polish community in Detroit (metro area) petitioned the local authority to close a Masjid in the neighborhood. They initiated a measure that would change the city ordinance to their liking which would close the Masjid for good. The Muslim community fought back and defeated the measure. The Masjid is open today because of them engaging the system and exercising their rights as citizens of the state. Well-informed, well-organized, politically active Muslim citizenry is a must for us to safeguard our faith. Of course, these thoughts are only opinion and as I said I will find out (or rather double-check) about voting and what sharia has to say about this.

 

Always learning!

[Thinkerman]

Mashallah this is a very informative debate.

 

I would myself just like to pick up again on the specific point of why our adopt nations might desire or want to see us integrated as a matter of urgency as opposed to other immigrant communities. And is there really just a substitution of words for the sake of political correctness, where integration and assimilation are concerned?

Dutch anti-terror raid nets two

 

Dutch warning to EU

 

The Dutch Immigration Minister, Rita Verdonk, has warned that EU countries are at risk, because of an increasing radicalism among young Muslims.

 

She said member states must act urgently to improve the integration of foreigners.

 

The minister, whose nation holds the EU presidency, said countries must ensure that immigrants learn the local language and accept Western values, but she said the EU also needed to develop, in her words, a common vision of integration.

 

Last week EU leaders agreed to create a common asylum system by 2010 to try to prevent illegal immigration into the EU.

 

[Conscious Manipulation]

asalaamu alaykum,

 

Wow, I never anticipated this many responses. If these discussions are being held about us then there's no reason why we shouldn't be discussing them too. Jzk for all your insightful replies.

 

Hanif:

Your point about Muslims finding a way to live in the West is very valid. The notion of Muslims living in un-Islamic society, is not something that's new to Islam and as such has not left it undefined. Islam defines exactly how we should live, function and conduct our affairs in un-Islamic societies. I should've clarified that Islam encourages interaction with society for the purposes of guiding people (doing dawah) by showing them the fallacies of the man-made systems they live their lives by and offering them Islam instead. Of course, it goes without saying that our means of doing this must be halal.

 

With respect to gaining our rights, the ends dont justify the means here. As Muslims our means must also be halaal. We can't partake in a haraam political system where we actively endorse someone to a position where they will assume the role of Allah and legislate laws for the people all bc there's a preceived benefit in it for us (maybe if we all vote for a particular candidate, we will influence foreign policy).

 

Also, this would not be conducive to our first mission of doing dawh. We can not simultaneously call be to Islam and tell them our way of life, ordained by the Creator, is better while at the same time being active participants in the political process that supports and prolongs the existence of the un-Islamic system. How counterproductive would this be?

 

Living in the West is no doubt a huge challenge for us, but we should see this challenge as a test from Allah and use it as an opportunity to strenghten our allegiance to Islam. We shouldn't try to compromise fundamental aspects of our deen all because it'll make our lives here a bit more comfortable.

 

Mutakalim,

 

Jzk for your last post as it clarfied your previous posts.

 

One thing about the definitions of words, you see, unlike your example with scissors, words like integration are defined by the socio-political context in which they're used. For example in European countries like France and Germany where assimilation tendencies are high, the words integration and assimliation are used almost interchangeably. Regardless, even if we were to take the dictionary definition; to integrate means: " to mix with and join society or a group of people, often changing to suit their way of life, habits and costumes". So if assimilation entails Muslims giving up all of their values and integration entails keeping only those that are in harmony with society, then they both amount to the same thing, kufr. So then it really makes no difference to Muslims if it's integration or assimilation.

 

Sayyid Qutb (may Allah grant him jannah) is right in his assertion that legislation is the exclusive right of Allah. This is a fundamental tent of tawheed and Qutb takes great care in spelling it out for the readers in Milestones. Wallahi I'm always surprised at how lightly we take this, bc if it's a matter of tawheed then it's a matter of kufr. The idea of necessity over riding the hukm- I think this is a principle in fiqh much like that of benefit (maslaha) that has been mis-used by Muslims in the West to justify everything from voting to taking riba (mortgage).

 

About your red light example, this would fall under the administrative system in Islam which is designed to aid the implementation of the shari'ah and is composed permissible (mubah) actions. For example, the hukum would be that the State ensures the safety of the citizens (or collect zakah, or build roads ect) any method used in achieving this is fine granted it's halaal. So stopping at a red light, bc it's man-made does not contravene with right of Allah to rule.

 

Again Jzk for your replies.

 

p.s Baashi, I used to have link where you can download Milestones online. Just can't find it right now. Let me know if you're interested and I'll inshaAllah look for it again.

[Baashi]

CM, it would be nice if you do that. I would appreciate it.

 

On the subject under discussion...

Yes Islam is, above everything, assertion of the certitude of Towheed. Is voting (in itself) a negation of the Towheed? Since voting is a way of expressing one’s preferences, does the intention of the voter (Muslim) matter at all? What about the prophet’s saying “Innamal acmaal biniyaat, wa likulimri’i maa nawaa...?

 

Deep down in my soul, whenever I vote I’m not casting my vote to endorse man-made rules (although I can see how one can take it that way), but rather I’m empowering a group of folks who might be sympathetic to the idea of co-existence (conducive to the dacwa) over bunch of dangerous intolerant ideologues. If I'm here to stay and call it home I may as well side with the ones that allow me to live by the good book. I want to interrupt my work for prayer, I want my daughter/sister/wife wear the Islamic dress code without them paying a price, I want the Eid to be a holiday without getting trouble with my boss., etc...you see where I'm going with this.

 

I’m mystified here folks how residing in non-Islamic states is permissible yet voting is construed as impermissible act? If one chooses to reside in a non-Islamic polity, one is giving a tacit approval of the system under which its jurisdiction one is residing. Noh? We are subject to the local legislation! Isn’t obvious then that voting as an instrument of change, a tool if you will to prevent legislations that hinder the very dacwa Muslims would want to conduct, is a privilege to make use of?

[Salafi_Online]

^^^ brother i agree with you,"

“Innamal acmaal biniyaat, wa likulimri’i maa nawaa..."

 

The noble shaykh Uthaymin and Ibn Baaz both supported voting, for those wo residing in a kufar land! you intention is not to give the ultimate rule to man, but rather to take advantage of the limited opportunites available in order to worship Allah ta baraka wa ta'la without restrictions! wheter you vote or not, you will still be under man made laws so best to use it for your advantage, while keeping in might that The ultimate rule belongs to Allah tabaraka wa ta'wala! However its not encourage for the believers to make the land of the disbelievers their permanent abode this should be a Temporary objective !

[Paragon]

Therefore, in the words of Sayyid Qutb - (may Allah forgive him) - there are things that are not befitting. In the words of Sayyid Qutb, in his works concerning tafseer and other than it there are unbefitting words and things that are not appropriate, and not befitting that a Muslim should express and say them.

Hmmm!

[NGONGE]

I find myself more inclined to agree with Baashi on this topic. Nonetheless, I could also see where the others are coming from and appreciate that voting in a Western democracy is unlikely to yield the desired results. I can’t say that I’ve ever participated in any elections (more through laziness and indifference than strong principles).

 

Still, the topic seems to have veered into the familiar ground of different scholar’s opinions and could easily transform into the usual slinging match of “My Mullah is better than yours â€!

 

I feel I have more to add here but I’m finding it hard to articulate myself right (few interruptions at home). However, what I’ll try to do is pose a few questions that have crossed my mind in the past or I’ve read about in Western press:

 

Do Muslims have a siege mentality? Is it of any benefit to us?

 

Christianity (or rather post reformation Christianity) claims to be all about the individual and individual rights. Many Christians argue that Islam is not, which is why it’s having a hard time coping with secular western democracies! Is Islam really anti-individual? (Pardon the simple terminology here).

 

I’m posing these questions in relation to the topic and not in general terms. Hope they make sense. When I have more time to organise my thoughts, I’ll try to expand on them and convey some of the scattered thoughts I’m experiencing right now.

 

PS

Thanks Baashi. The respect is mutual, saaxib. Or better still, let me borrow Mutakalim’s game of bridge and redouble my spades here.

 

PPS

The following article might be worth reading:

 

Muslims in the West

[Viking]

(I'll be less diplomatic than the two Nomads above)

 

 

Salafi,

No one had questionned or even highlighted the 'short-comings' of a scholar until you stepped in. It would be better for all of us if you refrained from such attacks mate.

[Salafi_Online]

^^^ Please do not misconstruct my post again SXB, (this is not the first time) the intention of the post is NOt to attack but simply Draw attention to those who used Mr Qutb as source of dalil for their argument! in addition it was a heads up for those those who are urge to read his works!

 

 

This is a public form after all, exercising ones opinion is still permissable right?

 

I will leave you with this and hope you get the meaning

 

"addeena an Naseeha"(bukhari)