If nations like Saudi Arabia,U.A.E, ...with huge numbers of South Asian immigrants...refuse to moderate their laws or culture for them and force immigrants to strictly follow the socials /traditions of Wahabbi Islam......like prohibition of construction of temples,other places of worship ,dress code for women ..... law code based on the sharia etc......
Germany and other European countries are quite justified in retaining their core "Judeo-Christian " characteristics.....
That's not a fair comparison to say that they are not as bad as the Wahhabi regimes. The better comparison would be against moderate Muslim countries, and I would state unequivocally that non-Muslims in moderate Muslim countries are treated better than Muslims are in the West.
That's right. Moderate Muslim countries are far more tolerant of religious diversity than Western countries. We don't have the mainstream media working 24/7 to stigmatize and demonize them for every petty crime. We don't have demagog politicians using them as scapegoats during election campaigns. And we don't have federal laws, national media campaigns and lynch mobs to oppose constuction of their prayer halls. They don't face job discrimination or harassment on the streets because of their dress.
Whatever communal violence there is against religious minorities is not disproportional compared to criminal activity in general -- it is more a manifestation of lack of law and order rather than organized targetting of specific groups.
First of all, its two way traffic, hence its not about not being allowed. Its about threat perception.
Yes, the threat comes from extremist elements, not the mainstream community. By stigmatizing and demonizing an entire segment of the population, the West is only exacerbating the situation.
Twelve year old schoolgirls wearing the headscarf is not a 'threat'; building a minaret is not a 'threat'; wearing a headscarf while teaching school is not a 'threat'; wanting to enact conservative dress codes in a swimming pool for one hour a month in a heavily Muslim neighborhood is not a 'threat'.
Quantity and quality matters. Our few whackos don't end up blowing themselves up in tube stations, hence less attention.
Anybody who advocates violence should be dealt with severely by the authorities. It is a law and order problem, not a clash of civilizations.
train prayer leaders and religion teachers more in tune with Western society
If you can explain this in tune with western society its clearly states they want to implement their/western version of Islam just as us tried to do with woman giving ad'an in the church. Got It?
Well, it depends what they want to 'train'. I didn't hear about this US push to have women giving azaans but we can agree that they shouldn't change any Islamic principles. The kind of training I would like to see would be things like encouraging education, work skills, social work, language learning, history, culture, etc. Things that the foreign-born mullahs, used to the dogmatic, authoritarian approach in the old country, don't bother with.
I disagree with you not all religious men coming on tv are embarrassment. Be specific choose them and list them.
I was talking about the ones in Australia. Most of them have strong Lebanese accents and are not very strong on public relations skills. The point is that the Islamophobes want to portray Muslims as aliens who cannot integrate into Western society. We need to counter that image by presenting public figures who are 100% local and are indistinguishable from the average man on the street.
This ties in with a fundamental tenet of Westen liberalism where, some decades ago, a prominent supporter of multiculturalism strongly advocated showing positive images of non-whites in mainstream media. That is why you will almost always see blacks, Asians, Latinos and others in a positive context in Western media. The only groups that are consistently shown in negative light, other than white males, are Arabs and Muslims.
But the bottom line is they were awarded their right of free speech. If they felt they were wrongfully persecuted then they could have filed for punitive damages.
Are you kidding me? Going to court is not a Sunday picnic. It takes time, money and drains you emotionally -- even if you win the court case. And who has the means to keep taking time off from work to fight court battles even if they are right?
However, the difference is terrorism. Islamic terrorism has affected people in west, so it would make sense that westerners pick on Muslims first for their xenophobic outbursts.
That is the whole debate and you have reached the verdict before even considering the case. The Islamophobes want to equate Islam with terrorism and, by extension, every Muslim is a potential terrorist until proven innocent. It defies the very basis of justice.
Inability of moderate Muslim leadership to curtail these radical elements is seen as a tacit approval to commit these acts by the westerners.
Again, you are condemning an entire community for the actions of a few extremists. By your logic, all Christians are guilty of 'tacit approval' every time a Christian commits a crime. Or a Hindu. Or a Jew.
It's ridiculous to hold an entire segment of your community accountable for the actions of some criminals.
