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

[Thinkerman]

Boy am i glad i dumbed down on s.o.l

 

Guys this is a very good topic and as far as i understood the questions raised for discussion and view points seeked stem from the following

 

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?

 

so lets try to stick to this for the sake of the intial poster conscious and lets try to curb our critisim's, and if not lets keep them constructive and in line with the topic at hand.

 

Enough of this

 

More sports for me .

[Paragon]

Mutak

 

Drop the act and discuss the topic (if you can grasp it that is).

[Mutakalim]

I have expressed my view on the matter, the ball is in your court. Do you have any "ideas"?

[Paragon]

Originally by Mutakalim: You see, the terms integration and assimilation are not, despite the the misinformed responses of others, synonymous.

Originally by Alle-Ubaahne: assimilation and integration are nothing but the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguestic books!

I agree with the latter. Because the definition of the terms "assimilation and integration" is as follows:

 

assimilate

 

•

verb 1

take in and understand (information or ideas).

2

absorb and

integrate into a people or culture

.

3

absorb and digest (food or nutrients). 4 regard as or make similar.

 

— DERIVATIVES

assimilable

adjective

assimilation

noun

assimilative

adjective

assimilator

noun.

 

— ORIGIN Latin assimilare ‘absorb, incorporate’, from similis ‘like’.

 

integration

 

•

noun 1

the action or process of integrating.

2

the intermixing of peoples or groups previously segregated.

 

— DERIVATIVES

integrationist

noun.

 

Source:

Oxford Dictionary

My agreement(s) with Alle-ubaahne's opinion were objective and his words had mirrored mine. So please keep your misguided assumptions to yourself.

 

PS: I am a man far too genuine to operate with borrowed thoughts.

[Paragon]

I must add that the reason why the term "assimilation" is said to have a connotation is because it is by a nature coercive process. The act of assimilating others is involuntary. While on the other hand, the term "integration" refers to voluntarily accepting the host or dominant culture. If, then, one chooses not to voluntarily accept a given culture, assimilation is the next step. Bear in mind that assimilation was once undertaken by colonial France on Algerians, while Britain employed another approach similar to integration. The overall result was the same (colonizing other cultures), regardless of whether it was done through coercion or achieved conscent of some sort.

 

Example: Assimilation is like one being told 'We want to kill you; how we kill you remains our choice, because you have no option in the style of your death'. Integration is like being told 'We wish to kill you, but you have the luxury of choosing which way to die'. 'If you want, we can bury you with your shoes off or on'

[Medley of extemporanea]

I think we have 3 choices with regards to living in the west, 1) we can leave and go back home 2) we can stay and integrate 3) we can stay and assimilate.

 

Everyone make your choice. For me right now it seems I have to integrate myself before I am assimilated. Leaving is just out of the question.

[Khayr]

Salaamz,

 

Originally posted by Conscious Manipulation:

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.

Interesting Comment....hmmmm!

 

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.

Akhi, the last sentence here needs some clarification. Maybe you can give us an illustration (example) inshallah, of ways that integration helps miniorities.

 

"Necessity supercedes proscription" (الضرورة تبيح المحظورات).

Do you think that the majority of North American ulema use this principle in their ijtihads

or do they encourage 'Assimilation' and/or 'Integration' because it creates less friction for the average muslim and is more acceptable to the massess?

 

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.

Maybe be integration here, you mean Active Participation and Interaction in society.

 

Well certain things for the muslims are done out of الضرورة(Necessity)such as wearing a suit and tie to an interview, making the hijab 'fashionable' at work etc. to survive and make an earning in society.

 

However, its a very thin and blurred line btwn what you say by "integrated without being assimilated" because to keep that identity clear as a Muslim while at the same time actively participating in society is a very difficult thing to do. Just look at the average muslim home and how it is furnished (Is there a prayer area set up in the house or Is there a Huge Big Screen T.V. set up in most muslim homes (and this is usually where the family spends the most time!).

 

What type of education do muslim children and their parents deem to be important?

Education for the Soul or Education for the 'Pocket Book' and 'Family Name'?

 

I think that once the muslim begins to feel Comfortabbble and doesn't see anything wrong with their 'modern' lifestyle, then that is wherein the danger lays and the lines have become blurred for the muslim as to what is Halal and Haram.

 

I recall one of the nomads in here sayings once to me that there is a Difference btwn Bidda Deeniya and Biddia Dunya (Innovation in Relgion and Innovation in Worldly affairs)

 

My Response is-If Deen/Reglion is a complete way of life, then why 'Secular' what is Bidda to just a few religious parameters i.e. 5 pillars, theology etc. Why not extend the definition of Bidda to when Muslims start to build Tall Buildings, Send their kids to Public Schools and other relevant issues that affect the daily lives of muslims.

 

I hope inshallah I didn't confuse anyone.

 

Masha Allah , I am glad that nomads are engaged in this type of dialogue.

 

Example: Assimilation is like one being told 'We want to kill you; how we kill you remains our choice, because you have no option in the style of your death'. Integration is like being told 'We wish to kill you, but you have the luxury of choosing which way to die'. 'If you want, we can bury you with your shoes off or on'

I like the Analogy

 

Fi Amanillah

[Baashi]

Good topic CM,

Nowadays everything is disguised under a curtain of semantics. We have heard words like evil, terror, savages, thugs, uncivilized, etc all used to characterize one side of the present conflict. These terms were chosen in a manner that cannot be defeated. Therefore, the simple bookish definition of words of ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’ won’t do justice to the topic at hand. We gotta put them in context and decipher the connotations they imply.

 

As a law-abiding citizen, I’ve already given my consent to the system with the understanding that the state and the church are two separate authorities and hence I’m free to embrace Islam and I won’t be subjected to obey other religions. As I understand it, my right to worship freely as I wish is protected by the constitution. Now, I can’t help but wonder whether the authors of the report CM posted see me as a law-abiding citizen for if they were they wouldn’t have a reason to think that I’m in need of integration more than Chinese or the Hispanics would be.

 

Integration in the sense that our rights and interests as citizens of the state are addressed so that we don’t feel disenfranchised is something we would welcome. But integrating us back into the society talk as if we are undesirable outcasts implies that we have to assimilate the “melting pot’ style which in turn implies that we Muslims have to give up some of our core Islamic values in order to be recognized as exemplary citizens like everyone else. That’s not helpful at all. It confirms our suspicion that the Messianic agenda that evangelists and neo-cons are promoting have no room for diversity and pluralism; and if anyone is in need of integration they are the ones that have to be reintegrated back to the mainstream society.

 

Mutakalim,

I find your reading of Milestones very interesting! It would be nice if you can elaborate more of Qutb’s views on voting. Read my take on this topic (if you would) and see if you can summaries Qutb’s views of Muslims like me who find shelter in abroad (as necessity dictated) and think they have freedom of worship. Thanks in advance.

[Viking]

assimilate

 

• verb 1 take in and understand (information or ideas). 2

absorb and integrate

into a people or culture. 3 absorb and digest (food or nutrients). 4 regard as or make similar.

 

— DERIVATIVES assimilable adjective assimilation noun assimilative adjective assimilator noun.

 

— ORIGIN Latin assimilare ‘absorb, incorporate’, from similis ‘like’.

 

integration

 

• noun 1 the action or process of integrating. 2 the intermixing of peoples or groups previously segregated.

 

— DERIVATIVES integrationist noun.

 

J11,

I have always known these two words to mean quite different things. Integrated individuals are those who study, work, pay taxes and follow the laws of their adopted countries as long as it doesn't interfere with their own beliefs (which they haven't abandoned even after migrating), just like the posters here on the forums.

 

Assimilation has a "negative" connotation and examples of assimilated individuals are people like Jack Straw and Micheal Howard. They are Jews who have absorbed into the system and even taken on gentile names (Micheal Howard used to be Micheal Hecht). If you look closely at the quote you posted from Oxford dictionary, it says "absorb and integrate" , meaning that one cannot be assimilated without being integrated but can be integrated without being assimilated. That is why the word 'assmilition' has not been used to describe integration.

 

The word 'assimilation' is used when describing absorption (in plants) during photosynthsis and the absorption of nutrients through the roots. This is referred to 'assimilation' and cannot be described as 'integration'.

[Thinkerman]

Integrating Muslims in the west.

 

I guess it depends on whom is intiating or desiring this as a necessity, would it matter if it were muslims designing to further integrate ourselves into western societies. Would this then imply that it is a good thing Re: point 7 of the intial thread.

 

What are the precieved needs, what is the core aim, is there a fear of the enemy within fanning this desire to integrate muslims further? or is the thought that muslims already residing in western societies could be further integrated and benefit the societies more?

 

These are the questions that jumped out at me

 

I found the contributions here very interesting. I like the analogy used by Viking to differentiate between the 2 words Assimilation and integration. I think thats the key.

 

To be integrated is to be part of the society and that is a good thing from my prespective i.e. being able to enjoy the benefits of being part of working force, accessing provision for education and still retaining our way of life mainly practising and followingly without prejudice our Deen.

 

Assimilation on the other hand is obviously the total abandonment of previous way of life, a change in the moral ethic's and what is viewed as a prority and what not.

 

It can be a by-product of living in western societies and trying to successfully integrate, but it can also be a result of well designed measures to help intice into a middle path which is a grey area where Muslim communities, Indiviuals and Community Leaders could go astry.

 

I also think also that one of the best way of furthering the dawah work is by establishing strong muslim communities in all the western societies we reside in, and this is a bigg positive for muslims worldwide

[Nomen nescio]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

 

That’s definitely relevant.. I dotn see any point of debating Islam with an Atheist..

So would you mind telling us your standing on that matter PK?

[Paragon]

J11,

I have always known these two words to mean quite different things. Integrated individuals are those who study, work, pay taxes and follow the laws of their adopted countries as long as it doesn't interfere with their own beliefs (which they haven't abandoned even after migrating), just like the posters here on the forums.

Viking, in writing the above quote, you have raised very crucial points in regards to the ‘concept of integration’. In order to respond fairly to you, I will group the points in the following categories: Education, Employment, Tax, and Law and order. However, I will Insha-Allah try to give you my personal opinion on one of these issues you have mentioned, which is Education. I will argue that the two terms 'Integration" and "assimilation" are similar, in the sense that stretched- or compulsary integration leads to assimilation.

 

On Education

 

When you say ‘integrated individuals are those who study’, it could only mean that these individuals are the only ones who have access to educational institutions, through the opportunities provided by integration. If that is what you mean, then, fair enough – it’s understandable. However, what seems to puzzle me about the notion of integration - as is currently portrayed - is its paradoxical nature. The paradox here lies in the definition of the ‘integrated individual’. For one to be considered fully integrated, he must study, work and many other things. So if I were to follow this criterion then it means that any Tom, Dick and Jaamac who attends a certain school is indeed integrated, and thus the need for one to integrate will seize to exist. Somehow, I feel that integration doesn’t stop at one attending an educational institution nor being happy with the educational system by which one is educated; but it seems aimed at the attitude and private culture of the individual – private liberty. It also wishes to determine which subject an individual should study or not.

 

To give you an example: the Muslim high school students in Paris didn’t object to French educational system, rather, the French educational system objected to the private and religious rights of these kids, all in the name social integration. How they dress, the attitudes they have and even their private rights (as stated in liberal doctrines) were subjected to scrutiny. Another good example in regards to the subjects’ which Muslim students can study or not, a story of discrimination of these students has even been featured in one of the broadsheet papers in Britain. In this instance, Muslim university students were refused to study subjects such as Medicine. The problem with the notion of integration is not it’s initial request of Muslims to co-exist with other communities, but the furtherance of its other hidden motives. It is also an attempt to control every aspect of Muslim communities only but not other communities like Sikhs in the UK, who, unlike us aren’t so much scrutinized. As the last words on the issue of Education: we are already integrated and anything beyond that is out-right assimilation. In addition, let me give my analysis on some of the suggestions the report asks of us to adopt. In the first place the report says:

 

“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;â€

 

When you read the above suggestion, you maybe mistaken to think that it is a straightforward and noble suggestion. But if you read between the lines, it becomes clear that when they say “more efforts should be made in the field of Muslim educationâ€, what they really are doing is practically bring Muslims under the direct control o government appointed and trained educators that are these days called the Mus-Mods (Muslim Moderates). These Moderates are not by themselves independent. They come under the Chaplainry of given educational institution, who then dictate on what is acceptable and what is not. Every step of the way of the so-called Muslim educators (which include trained and certified Imam) and guiders must be approved by the Chaplain, to make sure that the they cannot influence any of the students in any religious way. This is what educational opportunities of integration are meant by. Even more disturbing, there are economic restrictions on these appointed puppets on budgets such as that which Muslims students are legally entitled to during the month of Ramadan. It is for this reason that this new report suggests:

 

“Muslims should (not) accept money from Muslim governments or other extraneous sources;â€

 

What this implies is that “Muslims should (not only) accept†but also not send money back to their relatives and countrymen, even when it’s for genuine non-terrorist causes. It is this type of suggestion that had brought forth the closure of innocent firms such as Al-Barakaat. The intention is to de-link Muslims in the West from the rest of the Muslim Ummah. Once you economically curtail the connection between peoples, you have achieved “Disintegration from Islam and “Integration to Christian Valuesâ€. It is the curving of the Ummah into fiefdoms that will never pose any future threat. Russia had done exactly this way in the case of Chechens more than 50 years ago. Also, and most importantly, what happens to scholarship funds, which many Muslims studying in the west depend on? Are they to be abolished too?

 

 

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

 

While the Muslims are to “focus more on the issues facing them in the majority societiesâ€, what is the West doing to our origin countries? Attack them? Plunder them?

 

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

 

Fair enough. In the name of Human Rights, we shall set up ‘media watch groups. But what happens to our countries of origin? While we (Muslims of the West) are asked to look-away, how can we be sure the West is not using the excuse of (Western) Universal Human Rights, to perform regime change and in turn, kill in thousands our people, while claiming to civilize our savage (Women-Mutilating) and backward Islamic societies? A-ah, no can DO.

 

Nomads, I am sure you get the drift. So I will stop here.

[NGONGE]

This looks like a very good debate. It will be even better if people would engage their alleged “foes†on the points they’ve made rather than insulting them with malicious comments regarding their faith or accusing them of being Western puppets. The “foe†I speak off has penned a very good and clear (surprisingly so) post and those that disagree with it or find any faults in it, should roll up their cyber sleeves and enter the fray without referring to “older†discussions or making disparaging comments about the author - J11 seems to have done so even though the timing of his response could have been easily mistaken for one of those mindless replies.

 

On the points of “integration†and “assimilationâ€, the consulting of any decent thesaurus will confirm that these words are, indeed, synonyms. One wouldn’t like to assume and it might turn out that seasoned linguists do actually find these two words to be different and would regard them as anything but synonyms. However, for the purposes of our discussion, and since this is a debate about the integration/assimilation of Muslims in the West, the pedantry of linguists is only going to lead us into the blind alleyways of semantics and, therefore, we‘ll have to give it a rest for now. Something tells me that this was not the aim of the brother that attempted to clarify the difference between the two words. I suspect (and he’s free to correct me) that he used that line of reasoning to better explain his understanding of the West’s call for Muslim integration (this is the point people should have debated with him instead of chasing the red herring of assimilation/integration).

 

It is no big secret that many Muslims are apprehensive about the motives behind this drive for integration. After all, the most vociferous of those that call for Muslim integration (and sometimes assimilation) into the mainstream western society, seem to be those on the furthest tip of the so called right-wing. In addition, many Evangelists, Anglicans and Zionists are also very vocal in their demands for Muslims to be integrated into society. These calls and the fear of losing one’s faith (though it seems to mostly be a fear of losing one’s culture) lead many Muslims to reject such calls and intensify their doggedness.

 

Still, why are such calls made? Is it really just a straightforward attack on Islam and a wish on the West’s part to bury all traces of anything Islamic in its midst? Let us assume that this is the case, how then could Muslims deal with such an onslaught? Surely the ruling majority will always find a way to force Muslims into integrating (or rather assimilating - see French ban on Hijab). Remember; the idea that the West’s main aim is to fully assimilate Muslims is only an assumption and there is no evidence to prove it. The fact that there are conflicts between the Muslim and Western ways of life is not. Apologies for my simple approach but I see no alternative but to welcome and embrace integration (as long as it does not impinge on our Islamic beliefs), for if we don’t integrate, rules and laws will be made to force us to fully assimilate.

 

Westerners, Muslims in Western countries and Muslims in Islamic countries have been making a deafening racket about Islam, the need for reform, the position of Muslims in the West and even their loyalties! This idea of integration is but one piece of that perplexing conundrum, to examine it in isolation is unlikely to yield us any tangible results.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Assalaamu Caleykum aqyaarta.

 

First of all, let's deeply understand the intrinsic aspects and the intentions of the west when they say anything, as in this case, about integration or assimilation. I think there are two forms of integration/assimilation (the two words for me are in the same line of definition) (1) value integration/assimilation and (2) people integration/assimilation.

 

I think as Muslims in the west, our physical integration occurs everyday in the form of normal interactive dealings with the people of the west. We do this because we live and share the non-muslims with one environment. This form of integration or if I put it "volentary physical assimilation" doesn't lead to any tangible mental impacts. Therefore, the recommendations of the Center of Strategic and International Studies were not intended to address physical integration, I assume.

 

But more to encourage on values integration so as to maintain a unification of cultural values in favor of one value, i.e. the dominant cultural value. I deeply understand the objectives of the west, especialy its campaign to set one common value that will enable for its sociaty to properly function one way. I am afraid this will never happen because Muslims at large are well aware and gaining of course some political maturity to detect the traps of the west, which is perpetual and coordinated to set up the Muslims.

 

This growing awareness within Muslims will make their (West) integrational attempts more impossible and failing as a consequence of the West's known vicious intentions as well as its tarnished reputation. There are many instances we can offer about the hidden and sometimes open agenda of the west's concerted efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Muslims, but its yet unclear to see any historic momentum they attained in this regard, because a racialist policy doesn't ever win a satisfactory integration.

 

One of the respected forefront chairman and subcommitee on homeland security has said once, "Just turn (the sheriff) loose and have him arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line". Can his brother ask for any meaningful integration with the Muslims? What about this well known columnist's remarks after 911 which perfectly implies their dearly inclined integration, "We should invade (muslim) countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity".

 

That means we can only make them like us if we exercise that coersive theory. It never happen in the history of human beings that a soceity of well moral and constructive ethical standards who is taking the footsteps of an immoral and highly decayed one. The Mongols who forcefuly invaded the Muslims were finaly swallowed without any force by the high disciplinary Islamic culture, and that has led to the Mongolian forces to accept Islam smoothly.

 

As Brother Malcolm X has said interestingly about the notion of integration "the only integration I embrace is that of coffee and milk." Therefore, I think its crystal clear for many people that we (as human beings) are in the final stages of total disintegration in terms of values and moral grounds. Look at the extreme desparities of everything, political disparity, social and economic disparity, moral disparity, and so forth. We are, indeed, heading to a direction that is only known by Allah, and whatever predictive assessments we make, the chances are no one can surmise anything in an unprecedented world of realities.

 

Ibros (Alle-ubaahne)

[Viking]

J11,

You seem to have misunderstood my points. I wasn't discussing the 'intentions' of the western govts who call for "integration" of Muslims. I know very well that what they are calling for is (atleast in most cases) assimilation, hence my emphasis on semantics. When a western country wants to fund the training of Imams, it is clear that they want to "moderate" Muslims, making us (and especially the up-coming generation) the kind of Muslims THEY want them to be and not what Allah SWT expects from us. I know their intentions very well, the Qur'an is an ample warner for anyone wanting to know what we are up against.

 

Regarding education, you also misunerstood my point. It is true (as you say) that not everyone who wants has access to higher education or a decent job. But I believe that even those who are TRYING to get into this position (i.e. study or work) are integrated. They are in some way part of the society when compared to healthy seemigly young guys who chew khat and sit in cafes all day discussing decade-old clan politics.

 

I also consider a housewife who is taking care of five children, taking them to school, helping them with homework etc to be an integrated individual. Even though she is not studying, working or paying taxes, she is actively contributing to the future of the society she is living in.

 

Let me ask you, (am assuming by reading some of your posts that you are an active member of society) do you consider yourself integrated, assimilated or alienated? And, if I work (or study) and at the same time remain a good Muslim (praying, fasting, abstaining from what is forbidden etc.), should I be referred to as assimilated, integrated or both?

 

The point Mutakalim brought up about voting (and Qutbi's view) is important in knowing the extent of one's 'integration'. Because if you vote in the west and Islam forbids it, then you can be considered as assimilating (not integrating), eagerly trying to be part of the society to an extent that you are breaking the Law of Allah SWT.

 

As for the reason the French have banned the hijab in schools, it is the same reason the Turks have banned hijab in universities, to nurture secularism. It has (in my view) nothing to do with integration, they want Muslims to "absorb" (assimilate) into the system leaving behind their beliefs and values.