Message exceeded maximum post length...
Muslims may often say that we are willfully ignorant of their faith, culture and traditions, but it is increasingly apparent that they are ignorant of ours. It is unfortunate that they are not aware of the Reformation, the wars of religion, the renaissance and revolutions we have faced these past 500 years.
This much is quite true. (add "just as" or "almost as" before the second "ignorant", though.)
And, what, exactly, do you think has been going on in the Muslim world these past 1400 years?
They were around for that.
A self-picked religious figure head whose verdict you can ignore if you think he's wrong. Which kind of destroys the entire argument.
If you're going by a relatively traditional definition, that is. (Mind you, there is a fatal paradoxon involved... the system really never worked well except in a weak state and in an area where several different schools of Islamic law had their followers.)
Do they claim that? Was there a question - "Do you dislike elections?" "Do you dislike the fact that minorities have rights in Britain?" No? Thought so. Yes, and there were lots who said so? I stand corrected on that point then.
Hear, hear!
Some people do, more than you think maybe. As with most major migrations in world history (but there are exceptions) there is a comparatively minor but not insignificant stream back as well. Although "wanting to live under Shari'a law" is a major argument for only some of these.
What you should ask yourself maybe, though, is: If the vast majority of those who say that Shari'a law is somehow preferable to Western law (a position that is debateworthy [as long as we're not comparing the finest points of high Islamic justice with a lynching on the Western Texas frontier or vice versa] though I would find it quite clearly wrong.) have no intention of acting on this position ... how relevant is it really? I'm quite sure many if not most of them were just giving the orthodox Islamic answer out of a sense of solidarity, without really thinking it through.
Oh, sure. Although, of course, "individualistic" and "immoral" apply to far vaster portions of the population than you make it sound like. But yeah, there definitely is a certain contempt for the easy west in Islamic communities that was actually born out of the first migrants' "wow, anything goes here! Cool!" impression. Indeed, it's a widespread stereotype among Turks and ex-Yugoslavs (of any religion) here, especially women, that "Germans have no honour". And using a specific definition of honour that exists there, this is true - but it's still a claim that I (and most Germans, most of whom have probably never heard it, would too) find offensive. We do have a sense of honour, it just takes a different form.
Are you thinking of the failure to be integrated? Failure to integrate is something the host nation does.
The Afro-Caribbean population does
not rep. NOT strike me as well integrated AT ALL.
Germany too is integrating Poles well - but just about nobody else in more recent years, least of all Russians - part of the reason is the different migration pattern. It's quite hard to say where "German" ends and "Pole" begins. And part of the reason is that, back in the day, there was a conscious effort to integrate them.
In the US, Asians are being integrated so well they'd be in danger of being assimilated if it wasn't for the constant influx, while Blacks, four hundred years on, are basically back in square four or five.
