Why do Muslims want to move to "Western" countries?

[Woodrow]

In reality, most immigrants eventually lose their own culture and become totally Americanized. This happened to hundreds of thousands of Muslims, if not more. There were many Muslim immigrants at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century who came to places like Detroit to work in car factories and eventually became totally Americanized. The real danger is Americanization and westernization.

That reminds me very much of what the Chinese writer Lin Yu Tang once wrote.

These words or very similar:

"China can not be conquered as all invaders will always be outnumbered and adapt the ways of the majority. All invaders eventually become Chinese. They have not conquered, they became Chinese themselves."

I see the same happening with immigrants to the USA. They come into America, soon their heritage and culture becomes part of the American culture and before long the immigrants have become Americans ready for the next wave of immigrants.

 

[titus]

The real danger is Americanization and westernization.

You speak as if being a Muslim and American are mutually exclusive.

 

[Argamemnon]

That reminds me very much of what the Chinese writer Lin Yu Tang once wrote.

These words or very similar:

"China can not be conquered as all invaders will always be outnumbered and adapt the ways of the majority. All invaders eventually become Chinese. They have not conquered, they became Chinese themselves."

I see the same happening with immigrants to the USA. They come into America, soon their heritage and culture becomes part of the American culture and before long the immigrants have become Americans ready for the next wave of immigrants.

Yes, I agree. Also, let's be frank, most people in the West dislike Islam and Muslims. Hence I don't believe that one can be American (or Dutch) and Muslim at the same time.

 

[Argamemnon]

You speak as if being a Muslim and American are mutually exclusive.

I don't live in the U.S. but people are becoming increasingly intolerant here in the Netherlands, they shoot at mosques or try to set them ablaze (all of these happened recently). It's hard to call myself "Dutch" when they don't accept my Islamic identity while I've always been a law-abiding citizen.

 

[Argamemnon]

As for the the thread title, what kind of question is that? OP, why are westerners moving to Turkey and other Muslim countries?

 

[titus]

Also, let's be frank, most people in the West dislike Islam and Muslims.

That is not my impression of the US, nor the impression of my Muslim friends.

Gallup did a poll this year:

71% of Americans feel little or no prejudice towards Muslims.

Of those that responded negatively the main factor given was Muslim prejudice towards Jews.

I have also seen polls in which Americans say they would be more prone to vote against someone because they are atheist than because they are Muslim.

Also, one of the main factors in the attitudes towards Muslims was whether or not one knew a Muslim. Those that did not know any Muslims were twice as likely to have a negative attitude. I believe that as Muslims and Islam become more well known that the negative attitudes will decline.

Hence I don't believe that one can be American (or Dutch) and Muslim at the same time.

Again, I know many Muslim Americans that would disagree with you (and Rashad who posted earlier).

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

You know the saying, there are "Lies, ****ed lies, and statistics".

People can massage them anyway they like. There are plenty of people who hold a less optimistic view than you do. (Repeating myself I know)

Shalom:

What are the significance and extent of Anti Arab racism?

Chomsky

In the United State, its really the last legitimate form of racism. You don’t have to try to cover it up. You may be racist towards other groups, but you have to pretend you aren’t. In the case of anti Arab racism there’s no pretence required. The things I mentioned before are a perfect example. Distinguished Harvard professors produce statements that regard as hideously racist if they were aimed at any other target – Jews: impossible; Blacks, Italians any of them, unacceptable – but if you say them about Arabs, its fine. Jack Shaheen is one scholar whos done a lot of research on images of Arabs in cinema. Its grotesque right up to the present day. There’s not even much to say about it; its open, its considered natural and normal that you should be an anti Arab racist. Nobody will use the term for it, but it’s the kind of attitude and discourse that we regard as hideously racists if it was directed at any other target. Its all over the place.

Achcar:

And anti Arab racism is probably the sharpest form of even something more general, Islamophobia

Chomsky

Well nobody makes that distinction – Arabs, Iranian, Islam its all the same thing

Achcar

Exactly try to put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim and monitor the mass media. Its appalling. You get the feeling of being assaulted permanently. I am not speaking of actual acts of racists aggression, the discrimination and all that. I am speaking just about the media. Edward Said touched upon that in Covering Islam. The situation has worsened a lot since that book was first published in 1981, and it reached a peak after 9/11. The sheer quantity of ant Islam insanities and racists categorisations being hurled by people who are in most cases totally ignorant is absolutely horrible. I cant measure the difference between Europe and United States but in any case, in Europe this Islamophobia is a huge and worrying phenomenon.

 

[Zafran]

salaam

Chomsky

Well nobody makes that distinction – Arabs, Iranian, Islam its all the same thing

Thats the biggest mistake many non muslims make when looking at the mid east

 

[almahdali]

this question should backlash Westerners again, why do they come to the East during 15th C - 19th C? natives too have the same feeling like what Westerners feel nowadays

 

[Argamemnon]

"In fact some of the most pro-American people I know are Muslim.

They are probably not Muslim, could you define "pro-American"? Does that mean supporting U.S. massacres and aggression in Muslim lands?

 

[titus]

They are probably not Muslim, could you define "pro-American"? Does that mean supporting U.S. massacres and aggression in Muslim lands?

They are Muslim.

"pro-American" means being proud of what American stands for and the opportunity it brings and the freedoms it allows its people.

It does not mean agreeing with everything that the US government does, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Argamemnon]

They are Muslim.

"pro-American" means being proud of what American stands for and the opportunity it brings and the freedoms it allows its people.

It does not mean agreeing with everything that the US government does, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America (as a state) stands for:

"invasions … bombings … overthrowing governments …
occupations … suppressing movements for social change …
assassinating political leaders … perverting elections …
manipulating labor unions … manufacturing "news" …
economic and political sanctions ... death squads …
torture … biological warfare … depleted uranium …
drug trafficking … mercenaries …"

http://killinghope.org/

Perhaps less pride and more objectivity wouldn't hurt? This of course applies to most countries in the world, but especially to the U.S.

 

[titus]

By that same token, then, there are those who could equally claim that Islam (as a political state) stands for:

Suicide bombing innocent civilians.... forced conversions.....
chemical warfare.... oppression of women....
dictatorship.... oppression of religious minorities...
assassinating political leaders... torture... drug trafficking....
occupation... manipulating news... death squads...


All of the above, and more, have been done by "Islamic States" and Muslim governments.

So one can judge America or Islam however they like, using whatever criteria. If you are taught to hate America or Islam then you can easily isolate the negatives, ignore all the positives, and claim that is what the whole thing is about.

 

[Argamemnon]

^Yes and no.

I agree that no state is perfect, that's the part I agree with. However, a lot of people don't realize that there is a major difference between aggressive or less aggressive interventions in other states and some of the issues you mentioned - such as oppression of women within a certain state (which is an internal issue).

Could you tell me for example which countries Iran has attacked in the last 300 years or so? The Turkish-Iranian border hasn't changed since the Treaty of Zuhab (Kasri Shirin) in 1639. There have been no wars between Turkey and Iran ever since. When you compare this to the long list of U.S. state terrorism and wars and aggression you will have to conclude that the U.S. (as a state, because we are never talking about people) is infinitely more aggressive than Iran and has caused terrible human suffering. I honestly can't think of any state that's as aggressive as the U.S. It's almost a history of aggression; not a history of peaceful coexistence and cooperation by any means.

 

[titus]

You could use the original khalifate as an example then. It had almost continual wars of aggression with its neighbors until it ran out of neighbors it could conquer.

If you want current examples I agree that Iran is not he best example, but let's look at Iraq. In the last 50, not even 300, years they have attacked Israel, Iran and Kuwait. Far more people died in the Iran/Iraq war than in the current war in Iraq, and the majority of deaths in the current war were caused by Muslim on Muslim violence.

Iran is poor analogy with the US in this circumstance since their military power is extremely limited. Instead Iran simply funds and trains other people to do their fighting for them because they cannot handle it militarily. If Iran was more powerful militarily I have little doubt that you would see a large difference in their foreign relations. Simply look at the rhetoric of their president when it comes to Israel. And what other state often leads its people in chants calling for the "death" of another country? Just because the means are not there does not mean that the will is not there.

The Turkish-Iranian border hasn't changed since the Treaty of Zuhab (Kasri Shirin) in 1639.

And the US/Canada border is the worlds longest un-militarized border, and has been in place since 1846. If borders are your litmus test for aggressiveness then the US hasn't been aggressive since the end of the Mexican-American War. So even though Iran and Turkey have shared a border for X number of years is not proof of non-aggressiveness.

However, a lot of people don't realize that there is a major difference between aggressive or less aggressive interventions in other states and some of the issues you mentioned - such as oppression of women within a certain state (which is an internal issue).

But is because of those internal issues that many Muslims move to "Western" countries. In the US they are free to practice their religion however they want, not how the government tells them they have to.

They can also teach their children however they want. You can compare that to Iran which is "revising" what can be taught in their universities because they believe such subjects as women's studies and human rights are too "Western".

In the US Muslims have the freedom to send their children to Muslim schools in which the government does not control the curriculum. They can also home school their children.

It is because of freedoms like this, and many others, that many Muslims are pro-American.

 

[Zafran]

There is a flaw here with both of your analysis of the mid east - you have to remember that "Iraq", "Iran" and "Turkey" and any nation in the mid east didnt actually exist until the 20th century.

The most intresting examples you give about Iraq as the war against Iran was backed by the US pro saddam Hussien time and the war against Kuwait was anti saddam Hussien time - what war was it against Isreal?

The US has an entire history of proxy warfare - the cold war is a great example of it.

they have many blunders as well - Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq with a release of wikileaks and afghanistan where everyone knows that Karzai is corrupt but nevertheless the US support him. Its intresting that there was no muslim on muslims violence before the war on Iraq.......Until the US came along.

In the last 15 years the US has been more aggresive then any nation on earth with radically confusing wars. Whats odd about this is that this is nation that claims to be anti invasion and anti imperialism - its action show otherwise.

Talking about revising education - there was an issue about the text books in Texas I believe where your from where they saw them to be too pro Islam and anti christian.

In the US You can practice your religion however you want and the government wont do anything - but if you try to build a community center near ground zero - expect a war on your hands with the population. Some politicans even used this Issue for there own political gain.

 

[titus]

Talking about revising education - there was an issue about the text books in Texas I believe where your from where they saw them to be too pro Islam and anti christian.

In the US You can practice your religion however you want and the government wont do anything - but if you try to build a community center near ground zero - expect a war on your hands with the population. Some politicans even used this Issue for there own political gain.

Yes, unfortunately there are idiots in this country who feel the need to impose their religious views on others. The text book advisers in Texas are one of them. They also tend to try and insert their political leanings into the books which I cannot stand either. That being said one could always send their child to a private school of their choosing or home school, in either case those books would not have to be used. Living in Texas when my children start school in a few years I intend to send them to public school, yet be involved in their studies so I can give them a more complete picture.

Don't even get me started on the people that don't want the community center. Unfortunately part of having a country that allows free speech is allowing ignorant people to voice their opinions. You have to take the good with the bad.

There is a flaw here with both of your analysis of the mid east - you have to remember that "Iraq", "Iran" and "Turkey" and any nation in the mid east didnt actually exist until the 20th century.

True, but if you want to go back in history it is quite easy to find Muslim wars of conquest, from India to Spain to Africa and more.

 

[جوري]

Why do Muslims want to move to "Western" countries?

You'd too many bumpkins who didn't know how to run the show, so they called upon the best minds to come aid them..

BTW Titus.. I am curious as to what you consider 'freedoms' afforded people in the states? Better buckle up the fascist police state has been up & running and your same fellow bumpkins have been giving up their basic rights to protect those so-called 'freedoms' whatever they maybe.. I am certainly curious to have them listed..

best..

 

[Abz2000]

people were going to iraq and libya to get jobs while most of the people of those countries only ever went abroad on holiday, now iraqis and libyans are fleeing their bankrupt and destroyed countries.
do you wonder why?

here's one for ya:

 

[جوري]

^^ Riyad is wrong about the number of Dead Iraqis.. try a million and a half!
I also have a better explanation for 911..
but what's their explanation for the first invasion of Iraq? or the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan, or the previous invasions of Afghanistan from the 1800's on? or or or or? hmm? I'd like to know.