Jean wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:36 pm
Stop having white babies so we can justify brown people replacing you on your own homeland.
That's racist. ding
Can't help it that the above bell goes off automatically in my head due to watching too many CinemaSins.
When dealing with Islam it is important to keep in mind the distinction between Islam as a doctrine and the Muslims, a group of people who were born into an Islamic environment. There is nothing intrinsically Islamic about human beings, not even when they are named Mohammed or Aisha.
In Europe the secularist left accuses the national‑populist and xenophobic parties of a "biologization of cultural differences". When the said parties plead that they have put "racism" behind them, that they have nothing against coloured people or foreigners per se, and that they only fear for social disharmony as a consequence of the co‑existence of European and immigrant cultures, their opponents rightly argue that this implies a belief in the permanent character of people's cultural identity. By assuming that immigrant foreigners are bound to remain culturally foreign, the xenophobes treat cultural identity as if it were a racial characteristic: a permanent and hereditary trait. In reality, of course, cultural identities change, e.g. most second‑generation Hindu immigrants have moved rather closely towards the mainstream culture of their adopted countries. Cultural identity including religion is not a permanent or hereditary trait.
This secularist "biologization of Islam" is also assumed, quite mindlessly, by most people.
Moreover, this approach of shielding Islam from critical enquiry is unfair to Islam by emphatically ignoring Islam's own self-definition as a religion based on a truth claim, viz. that "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is Allah's prophet", a truth claim which can and must be evaluated as either true or false.
The harder they try to be secular, the more they reduce the Islam problem to one of co-existence with a community which is somehow different, though the nature of that difference is emphatically not up for analysis.
Example, Not one bad word will they say about Islam, even though it is Islam and nothing else which separates the Indian Muslims from their fellow Indians.
Finally, this non-doctrinal approach to the Muslim community creates the impression of a purely xenophobic motivation, similar to that of anti-foreigner parties in the west. Xenophobic parties in the west are faced with the problem that the country which they claim for their own nation is "invaded" by an outsider population which they cannot or will not assimilate. The cadres of these parties are often ideologues of ethnic or racial purity who do not want to assimilate Blacks or North-Africans or Turks, just as their grandfathers once rejected the assimilation of Juice. The recent electoral growth of these parties is mainly due to working-class people who have assimilated immigrant labour (Italians, Poles) before but who now find that certain new immigrant groups (particularly Muslims) in their neighbourhoods cultivate their separateness. They fear that, they can not assimilate these separatist newcomers, and that their children will be faced with a civil war. Either way, the starting-point of these xenophobic parties is the separateness or non-assimilation of foreigner populations, and their only solution is to send these immigrants back to their countries of origin.
The best example of this alleged similarity is the common complaint about the Islamic birth rate.
1. The non-whites in the USA do not or need not form a genuine problem for US whites, because people of different ethnic backgrounds can and do share in the same American Dream, can and do participate in a common American society. By contrast, Islam in India is intrinsically separatist and aiming for hegemony and ultimately for the destruction of Hinduism through conversion or otherwise.
There is nothing intrinsically anti-white about blacks, but there is definitely something intrinsically anti-Hindu about Islam.
For this reason, the concern of whites about the growth of non-white groups in the USA is reprehensible, but the concern of Hindus and non-Muslims about the growth of Islam is entirely justified.
2. people's membership of certain racial groups, black or white or other, is unchangeable. While the potentially alarming adherence of people to Islam is entirely changeable. And it is at this last point that the secularist acceptance of the Islamic identity of the Muslims distorts the picture.
Muslims have walked into Islam, and they are bound to walk out again as well. Conditioning of Islamic indoctrination is powerful. Yet it's still a superficial imposition. So it's susceptible to the law of impermanence. That is why any solution which starts by assuming the race basis or Muslimness of Muslims, is mistaken.