Debunking Multiculturalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter syilla
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 34
  • Views Views 5K
According to Joshua Project website (I dont know if you can accept figures from Christian missionary website)

JAPAN

Population: 128,219,010

Minority Ethnic Groups:

* Korean: 693,051 (0.54%)
* Chinese: 270,689 (0.21%)
* Eurasian: 129,068 (0.10%)
* Bengali: 71,312 (0.06%)
* Punjabi: 71,312 (0.06%)
* British: 70,309 (0.06%)
* Judeo-Japanese: 63,274 (0.05%)
* Filipino: 61,268 (0.05%)
* Persian: 51,224 (0.04%)
* American: 25,818 (0.02%)
* Ainu: 15,071 (0.01%)
* Malay: 10,045 (0.008%)
* Thai: 10,045 (0.008%)
* French: 6,432 (0.005%)

Minorities: 1.221% of population. Yeah... JAPAN is Homogenous!!
 
HAITI

Population: 8,649,903

Minorities:

* Latinos: 30,129 (0.35%)
* Arab: 3,537 (0.04%)
* American: 728 (0.008%)
* French: 626 (0.007%)
* Chinese: 307 (0.004%)
* Jew: 205 (0.002%)

Total: 0.411% of population. SMALLER than JAPAN's Minorities.
 
north_malaysian said:
HAITI

Population: 8,649,903

Minorities:

* Latinos: 30,129 (0.35%)
* Arab: 3,537 (0.04%)
* American: 728 (0.008%)
* French: 626 (0.007%)
* Chinese: 307 (0.004%)
* Jew: 205 (0.002%)

Total: 0.411% of population. SMALLER than JAPAN's Minorities.
Click to expand...

:hiding:

205 Jews and 307 Chinese! I wonder if they go door to door looking for such menial numbers. :D :rollseyes
 
north_malaysian said:
Can u give examples of countries that promote multiculturalism and got problems with it?:?
Click to expand...

****, I was afraid someone would ask that question ;).

Well, consider this. How many inter-state wars are in progress right now? Virtually none. How many civil wars are in progress right now? Dozens. What is the source of these civil wars or tensions? Some are mainly political in nature, sure, like in Columbia or Nepal. But most have a cultural and ethnic dimension. Just think of Southern Thailand, the civil war in Iraq, the Kurdish question in Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, the genocide in Rwanda, the unrest in Nigeria, the civil war in the Ivory Coast. Thousands die in India each year in all kinds of Muslim-Hinda communal violence. And to be quite honest, Muslim-non-Muslim relations in Europe aren't all that good either at the moment!

In general putting different ethnic, religious or cultural groups together in one state, especially if that state is poor and has no strong institutions, the chance of conflict simply seems considerably greater than in more homogenous countries. Multicultural countries in general are harder to manage, heck, just look at my home country Belgium, in my opinion it is a politically slightly dysfunctional country, due to the frequent French-Dutch tensions and (non-violent) struggles.

Now, obviously not all of these states actively promoted multiculturalism, so the policy of multiculturalism cannot generally be blamed for these conflicts, since most of these countries were already multicultural to begin with. What I oppose is a multicultural policy for largely homogenous countries, thus promoting that new immigrants keep their old culture and do not assimilate into the existing culture. IMHO that is bound to lead to segregated communities and eventual tensions. There must be something bigger all citizens of a nation must strive for, a bit like the myth of "the American dream" in the United States, which all immigrants are expected to believe in. We must not be so naive to think we can let in tens of millions of new immigrants and simply expect there to be no tensions or problems. Maybe it will work out, but the chances of things going wrong are simply considerably higher.

IMHO :D
 
Last edited:
KAding said:
Good article. I would agree with you. Islamic doctrine does not accept the equality of different religions within a state. Any country with a Muslim majority is expected to be ruled Islamically, which by definition means non-Islamic doctrines are inferior and non-Islamic cultures should be subordinate to Islam.

Mind you, as a strategy for social stability I can hardly blame them. Multiculturalism is a somewhat dangerous dream. History has abundantly shown that multicultural societies are much more prone to civil strife and even war, especially if they are inhabited by mutually exclusive and competing political doctrines. Obviously it becomes even worse if one or more of these competing doctrines don't accept as the author says a "liberal separation of religion from social order".
Click to expand...

your completley wrong. you are giving examples of countries now. for example pakistan. islamic doctirine does except that other religions are equal. infact one of the first things i was taught was tolerance of other religions. now, in an islamic state, a state ruled by shariah law, people from other faiths are within there rights to practice their faith.

but, having said that, non-islamic doctrines are inferior, seeing as most of them are man-made or as in the case of christianity and judaism, have been changed by man to suit his needs. but islam is from allah, and hasnt been changed from the day it was revealed, people have only ceased to apply it proplerly. but as an atheist, i will expect you to not understand this paragraph in its entirety.

now i havent read the article, but it seems that "liberal separation of religion from social order" is just another way of putting secularism. i asure you, it is impossible to seperate islam from every day life, because islam is not just a religion, that would make it weak and i would also be an atheist, rather, islam is a system to rule and govern by. it has its own political system, judicial system, welfare system (which the west usurped), et cetra.
 
I think the main issue with multi-cultural states is the fairness of the political process. If 80% of the population is Yakyak, and 20% are Pakpak, but the Pakpak control the government, that is a nation waiting for civil wars. Unless you have a fascist dictator willing to murder and suppress by any means necessary. An imperfect but fair political process, as exists in the U.S. and many other areas of the world, makes it easier for different cultures to live together. However, this is showing signs of strain. The dominant culture expects immigrants and people of other cultures to adjust and adapt to the dominant culture, rather than the dominant culture adjusting and adapting to theirs.
 
Mr. Baldy said:
your completley wrong. you are giving examples of countries now. for example pakistan. islamic doctirine does except that other religions are equal. infact one of the first things i was taught was tolerance of other religions. now, in an islamic state, a state ruled by shariah law, people from other faiths are within there rights to practice their faith.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the issue isn't whether they are tolerated. I do not dispute that the whole concept of dhimmitude was tolerant for its time, although I would like to note that it is generally just Muslims who think it would be swell to be dhimmi, non-Muslims are usually not so enthusiastic! Besides, I am not even part of the 'people of the book', so I am not even allowed to become a dhimmi.

But the real issue is whether Islam accepts other ideologies as equal on a political level. Since an Islamic state is supposed to be just that, Islamic, there is little room for non-Islamic politics. Thats why I agree with Md Asham Ahmad, Fellow at the Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science who wrote the original article, that Islam does not accept the idea that religion and 'social order' should be seperated. The state in Islam must be openly Islamic and not neutral towards all religions. Not all religions are considered equal.

but, having said that, non-islamic doctrines are inferior, seeing as most of them are man-made or as in the case of christianity and judaism, have been changed by man to suit his needs.
Click to expand...

Well, that kinda proves my point then. Not only do you think your ideology is superior, which is normal, I also think my ideology is superior, but you want to make it the basis of the state. You don't want the state to say "we consider all religions equal", you want it to accept that "Islam is the best". No country that says that can have be truely multicultural, because the state itself is not neutral.

but islam is from allah, and hasnt been changed from the day it was revealed, people have only ceased to apply it proplerly. but as an atheist, i will expect you to not understand this paragraph in its entirety.

now i havent read the article, but it seems that "liberal separation of religion from social order" is just another way of putting secularism. i asure you, it is impossible to seperate islam from every day life, because islam is not just a religion, that would make it weak and i would also be an atheist, rather, islam is a system to rule and govern by. it has its own political system, judicial system, welfare system (which the west usurped), et cetra.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in that way I think Islam is different from many other religions. Btw, if the state is secular it does not mean the country should also be secular. Look at the US, virtually all the politicians are openly Christian, but the state institutions (theoretically) don't recognize Christianity as any more valid than, say, Scientology.
 
Looking back over this thread, I am begining to suspect that no nation ever remains multi-cultural at some point the diverse inhabitants establish a new unique culture. I believe that is what is happening in America. After nearly 300 years of being a very diverse, multi-cultural country something called American culture is emerging and we are going through growing pains as it developes. Looking back at our past. There has always been discrimination and the wishes of the minorities were overlooked. But, today the combined forces of the minorities out number the established "majority" and finaly an American culture is forming and the remaining hold outs of the old majority are putting up a struggle to retain the status quo.
 
Of course they can believe in whatever they want to believe. But we would like to ask a very simple question: Who says the secular world views is our common worldview?

That is surely not acceptable to Muslims, who are aware that secularism is antithetical not only to Islam but to all religious worldviews.

Learning the ignorant and confused Muslim aside, there is no way to make conscious Muslims accept a secular interpretation of life and existence as espoused by Western culture and civilisation.

The followers of other religions should recognise the fact that their religions have many things in common with Islam, particularly when it comes to ethics and morality.

Is it through Malaysia, as an Islamic state, that other religions would thrive, and that we have better chance of fostering national unity based on common religious worldview.

A secular Malaysia would be an enemy not only to islam but a common enemy to all religions.

We must realise that the fact that secularisation can be considered a natural phenomenon only in the case of the West, considering what they have experienced in their history.

To apply their solution to our problem is to admit that we are now experiencing the same problem they used to have; which is historically baseless and logically absurd.
Click to expand...

erm....did anyone even read the conclusion of the article :hiding:
 
absolutely boring i nearly slept come on syilla, thought this would be interesting




jk great article:D :D
 
It is possible to be multicultural in an islamic country or state.
Its not possbile to be multi-religious as you would have it but in a large country where everyone comes from different far off villages there would be a difference in culture. The base would still be islamic shariah but other than that each village may have its own particular practices that doesnt conflict with the shariah.

eg. one village may have sweet things to eat at a wedding feast accompanied with decorations and a vast feast where everyone is invited....... while another village may just have the actual ceremony and a small feast with a few people only - and this would have developed over centuries as a village tradition.

another example would be that one village could be traditionally farmers while the village on the other side of the river would be hunters. Each village would have its traditions and thoughts and preferences thus creating a unique culture of their own within the bounds of the shariah.

BTW i didnt read the article as yet.
 
:exhausted I have to say...after reading all that!!!
I got what it was on about...but can't really decide if I agree with what it said[MAD][/MAD]
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top