Immigration 4 - Assimilation

I’ve wanted to write this for some time.  Ever since I realized that my posts were becoming rants.

I’m a nice guy.  Really.  And I feel that I know something about fundamental Islam (I’ve lived and worked in Islamic countries).

Fortunately, I am an immigrant who became a citizen ... and I use the word ‘fortunately’, wisely.

It was easier for me to assimilate into Canadian culture, although I don’t usually like to get up on a Sunday morning and drive, half asleep, to a restaurant for ‘brunch’, eh.

But, now, I find myself frustrated by misunderstood Muslims who exacerbate the Islamic Problem.

This isn’t about hate.  Buddhism taught me that ... Christianity too.  It is about assimilation.

Let me conjure up a common scene for you:

A city center on a sunny weekend.  Any large city in Canada (This could also apply, for example, in the U.K. or the U.S.).

Imagine being able to stand in a prominent position overlooking the scene.

Now, scan the crowd and identify a French Canadian.  Possible?  No.

Ok, try to identify an Italian Canadian, a Korean Canadian, or a Mexican Canadian.  Impossible.  Right?

Now, try to identify a Muslim Canadian.  Oh, wow!  That’s easier than eating strawberry ice cream.

But it’s not about numbers.  It doesn’t matter if there are 25 or 25,000, they are identifiable, and it’s got nothing to do with religion.  The Qu’ran demands only that they should dress “modestly”.  Just like my mother, I suppose.

In my opinion, it’s about the Muslims misinterpreted belief that they are different.  That a world defined by Sharia law would be perfection.  Quiet, moderate, Muslims do not loudly decry the Islamic inspired atrocities because they are patiently ... waiting.

Actually, back in the city center, there are a few young Muslims who look like other Canadians but, unfortunately, they are too afraid to be identified by demanding that their imams teach assimilation and not contradistinction ... hopefully, in one of the two official languages.

Is it enough to just simply "hope"?

Politics 2 - Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, even in a political sense, may be interpreted in various ways.  Generally speaking, it has come to mean the argument for extending equal status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific community values.

Originally, in my opinion, it was thought to lead towards assimilation and monoculturalism.  But, now, this commendable idea seems to have failed.

We have a global society that is multinational and where everyone in the developing countries, today, because of the Internet and other forms of international media, desires a higher standard of living ... and we cannot be critical of that.  The problem is the perceived entitlement of citizens of poorer countries to emigrate to richer countries and, this, they will attempt to accomplish illegally, if necessary.

As I said in the introduction, it is “extending equal status to distinct ... groups without promoting any specific community values”.  Therefore, it accepts religious beliefs dependent upon observance of the country’s laws and constitution.  For example, if Sikhism requires a man to carry a knife, the knife should by symbolic and unable to cut.  If Islam requires a women to be modest, it is too extreme to completely cover the face, and security laws must predominate.  If genital mutilation is considered to be a violent and disfiguring injury, then, those who carry out such acts must face the full force of the law.  Finally, Sharia law is not part of Canadian law, and any attempt to include parts of it, must be strongly resisted.

Ask an immigrant from Somalia (for example) if they are, either, a Somalian, a Somali Canadian, or a Canadian (assuming citizenship), there should only be one answer.

Assimilation was never going to be successful and, now, it seems that multiculturalism is a failure too, at least, according to many powerful world leaders — Thus, another look at our whole immigration philosophy is necessary.

Therefore, it is a political requirement ... highlighted in Norway, recently.


Is that a controversial comment to make?  I hope so.

Religion 1 - The Burqa

Just the word alone attracts much attention. Discussion related to the Burqa, is not only a religious issue but also becomes a political issue (Just to name two).

It is my experience that many people do not understand the definition of a burqa. It is, simply, an outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions to cover their bodies in public places. Confusion exists in the use of words such as, hijab and niqab. These are individual parts of the burqa — the hijab being a head covering, and the niqab being a face covering (or veil).

I can see little reason to be offended by a woman wearing a burqa that does not have the niqab. In fact, some European women, in the summer, may wear a Indian sari as an evening dress, even though they have no knowledge of Islam. The sari being little more than a burqa with the hijab and niqab removed.

It is interesting to note that all women are asked to cover their heads with a scarf, as a matter of respect, when entering churches and cathedrals. Yet, ironically, some of those women, would still be critical of Muslims wearing a simple burqa.

The wearing of a niqab in public is the most controversial aspect of this discussion because a liberal interpretation of the Koran fails to convince most people that God (Allah) commanded that women must be completely covered. In addition, it is recorded that Mohammed said that both women and men should “dress and behave modestly in public.” This is a tradition that happened long before Islam, and should be interpreted according to today’s normal behaviour.

I read that a Muslim cleric had stated that women must wear a niqab because when a man looks at a woman’s body he looks, first, at her face. This is ridiculous because all things being equal, in other words, when a man has the opportunity to look at a woman’s naked body, the face is not the initial attraction.

Therefore, it is not surprising that countries are beginning to seriously consider banning the niqab (France has already done so) with arguments against being made by men and women indoctrinated by unfortunately biassed, and bigoted, interpretations of the Koran.

Discussion related to health matters or assimilation into other societies would be something to include at another time.