What If series: In case of a war between your country of origin and residence, where will your loyalties lie?

[Red-Indian]

Completely agree.

I should say though that whatever be the definition of secularism you or individual Muslims subscribe to, more acceptance of the "live and let live" principle is needed - especially in the first group I alluded to above. Most second generation plus Muslims now seem to instinctively (if not verbally) accept that freedom to practice your unique religion also means freedom to let others practice their unique sexual kink. Freedom flows both ways.

However, most first generationers and a healthy chunk of second generationers (and of course most everyone living in Muslim majority countries) want the superficial benefits of Western style democracy without the baggages of freedom it comes attached with. I think folks have to realise that it's very difficult to only go so far and no further with the concept.

Of course, there's a healthy chunk of Hindutva Indians who're also hoping to keep the veneer of the secularism and democracy while rolling back the freedoms but it's tougher to take away freedoms folks have been used to for so long.

 

[Hitman]

Muslims love secularism, yes. but ONLY when in minority.

This is a truth that anyone with a proper working brain would admit. Kudos to you for putting it bluntly.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is a truth that anyone with a proper working brain would admit. Kudos to you for putting it bluntly.

I don't mean that muslims want strict implementation of sharia in muslim countries, many do want some liberal laws for women, and non muslims, but they all draw a line in the sand, that the country must retain its Islamic character. The state religion should be Islam, at the very minimum. This is the bare minimum every muslim wants. This is their Point Zero.

In any country, if people want a particular to be the state religion, they will be called right wingers. In muslim country, if your only wish is that the state religion remain Islam, while other laws can be picked and chosen ( a mix of modern and sharia based laws), they see themselves as centrists or even leftists. But they are also right wingers. They are not able to see it because of relativism. They think, hey, I don't like mullahcracy, I want some form of liberal laws for everyone, women and non muslims, so I am a leftist liberal. But even the liberal among muslims, starts with Islam. Faiz Ahmed Faiz, the celebrated marxist poet was not an atheist, and not even a cultural muslim, he used Islamic imagery consistently in his poems. His leftistism starting point was Islam.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I should say though that whatever be the definition of secularism you or individual Muslims subscribe to, more acceptance of the "live and let live" principle is needed - especially in the first group I alluded to above. Most second generation plus Muslims now seem to instinctively (if not verbally) accept that freedom to practice your unique religion also means freedom to let others practice their unique sexual kink. Freedom flows both ways.

However, most first generationers and a healthy chunk of second generationers (and of course most everyone living in Muslim majority countries) want the superficial benefits of Western style democracy without the baggages of freedom it comes attached with. I think folks have to realise that it's very difficult to only go so far and no further with the concept.

Of course, there's a healthy chunk of Hindutva Indians who're also hoping to keep the veneer of the secularism and democracy while rolling back the freedoms but it's tougher to take away freedoms folks have been used to for so long.

Oh for sure there is massive hypocrisy amongst many Muslims. People behave as if secularism/liberal democracy works when it protects rights that are convenient but not when it protects things I don't like. India is a good example of this. Indian Muslims have for many years sought the shelter of secularism when convenient and hid behind religion when convenient.

But that's human nature and not uncommon in other groups and as long as it's channeled in a non violent way - via debates and the ballot box it's ok.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

His interpretation is wrong. Why do most muslims don't want to live in an Islamic nation? Do they want secular nation?

Do they want Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Qatar etc to become secular nations?

NO and NO.

They want all muslim countries to PRESERVE their islamic nature.

@Red-Indian thinks that because muslims have migrated to western secular countries, somehow they love secularism.

Muslims love secularism, yes. but ONLY when in minority.

No muslim country is seeing any demand for secularism. People have other demands, but having a secular nation, is not one of them.

We can refine it not secularism in entirety but some secular policies. Majority of public will lean this way rather than the other way.

So again in the context of the discussion ( which I believe was Muslims demanding Sharia in western countries) his overall point is correct.

But you are also correct to highlight the relativism.

 

[HalBass9]

His interpretation is wrong. Why do most muslims don't want to live in an Islamic nation? Do they want secular nation?

Do they want Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Qatar etc to become secular nations?

NO and NO.

They want all muslim countries to PRESERVE their islamic nature.

@Red-Indian thinks that because muslims have migrated to western secular countries, somehow they love secularism.

Muslims love secularism, yes. but ONLY when in minority.

No muslim country is seeing any demand for secularism. People have other demands, but having a secular nation, is not one of them.

People tend to prioritize quality of life over abstract concepts such as secularism. It is important to recognize that Muslims, like all individuals, share this universal human concern.

 

[Rajdeep]

His interpretation is wrong. Why do most muslims don't want to live in an Islamic nation? Do they want secular nation?

Do they want Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Qatar etc to become secular nations?

NO and NO.

They want all muslim countries to PRESERVE their islamic nature.

@Red-Indian thinks that because muslims have migrated to western secular countries, somehow they love secularism.

Muslims love secularism, yes. but ONLY when in minority.

No muslim country is seeing any demand for secularism. People have other demands, but having a secular nation, is not one of them.

What an obvious question to ask...isn't it pretty obvious?

Look at guys like Anjem Choudhary for example, whole life preached about Islamic laws, supporting terrorism against west and did all of that staying in Great Britain in a council house paid by British tax payers. I mean he could have easily moved to Middle east along with his family where his rule (which he wanted to implement in west) is followed.

Look at Shamima Begum...went to join ISIS who waged a war against America & Britain and now crying to come back in the same country she wanted to wage a war

Look at all the Islamists sitting in India like Rana Ayyub, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Sayema etc. Everyday they find flaws with India and its democratic process, loves Islam to the core but still won't leave the country and move there.

Just look at this thread itself. Some posters are saying if given a choice, they would use their right and vote for Shariya law. A law that is predated and don't give any rights to Women and Transgenders. However, if they feel so strongly about that law, what is the point of living in west? Just 8 hrs flight to Afghanistan where they can live under the same law in Taliban regime. But not a single one will go.

This is the reason why they have been in constant tussle is almost every country where they are in minority - West, India, Australia, Japan...you name it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What an obvious question to ask...isn't it pretty obvious? They are the biggest hypocrites in the world.

Look at guys like Anjem Choudhary for example, whole life preached about Islamic laws, supporting terrorism against west and did all of that staying in Great Britain in a council house paid by British tax payers. I mean he could have easily moved to Middle east along with his family where his rule (which he wanted to implement in west) is followed.

Look at Shamima Begum...went to join ISIS who waged a war against America & Britain and now crying to come back in the same country she wanted to wage a war

Look at all the Islamists sitting in India like Rana Ayyub, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Sayema etc. Everyday they find flaws with India and its democratic process, loves Islam to the core but still won't leave the country and move there.

Just look at this thread itself. Some posters are saying if given a choice, they would use their right and vote for Shariya law. A law that is predated and don't give any rights to Women and Transgenders. However, if they feel so strongly about that law, what is the point of living in west? Just 8 hrs flight to Afghanistan where they can live under the same law in Taliban regime. But not a single one will go.

This hypocrisy is the reason why they have been in constant tussle is almost every country where they are in minority - West, India, Australia, Japan...you name it.

I don't see it as hypocrisy.

It is the opposite. Being consistent with your beliefs. And that is that the muslim civilization prospers and expands. Obviously where resources are limited, others will not be happy with muslim civilization's expansion, and there will be friction.

Fight for resources is the reality of this world.

Every religion, at the very basic level, is a currency. Your currency only works if there are many who believe in your currency. Every currency holder would want that there are more and more people who use the same currency. While Hindu civilization may not have historically pursued expansion, possibly because they were content with the abundant resources available to them, others were driven by different ambitions. Among the world's religions, Islam stands out for its strong emphasis on growth and expansion. Ambitious endeavors, often come at the cost of conflict, as those who seek to grow must sometimes do so at the expense of others.

 

[CricketCartoons]

People tend to prioritize quality of life over abstract concepts such as secularism. It is important to recognize that Muslims, like all individuals, share this universal human concern.

Even human right is an abstract concept. Abstract doesn't mean it is not valuable.

For muslims, secularism is not a priority, not even the least priority, is because they never had separation of state and church. Islam is the polity and Islam is the religion. Khalifa was both the head of State and the religious leader of muslims. Religious authority and political authority vested in the same person, not different institutions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Lot of Pakistanis and overseas Pakistanis seem to believe the main reason for the India-US relationship is the Indian market size. In reality, the US makes very few things that India buys and India runs a massive trade surplus with the States.

If anything, India's a huge market for China. We bought over a $120Bn worth of stuff from China direct last year Vs. $42B. Even companies like Apple make more in India than they sell.

I know you hate to acknowledge it but there's plenty of other reasons for the pretty good diplomatic relations between India and the States - we're both strong democracies, secular nations and have common interests against authoritarian China. Of course, plenty of differences as well but solid common cause to be natural allies. Even the legacy socialist leanings in India are gone. Both nations are naturally going to be cautious - us because of the US' tendency to abandon developing country allies. Them because of our strong relationship with Russia but we're naturally going to draw closer over the next 10-15 years.

Is that not because India is still for the most part a third world country? Hence the majority will tend to buy cheaper Chinese products rather than more expensive versions from the USA? I think for the US, soft power is very important, and their biggest product in this regard is media which comprises Hollywood, Fox News, social media, books etc. As India moves out of poverty, so American influence will take more hold in countries like India and this is where USA will capture more market share.

I agree there are good diplomatic relations at present due to some commonalities - although I am not sure secularity will last the course the way India is headed - but ultimately both nations are capitalists and self interest means friendship will become rivalry unless one is subservient to the other.

 

[Stewie]

so you just made stuff about what is illegal?

BTW, given that US doesn't recognize dual citizenships and expects full allegiance of its citizen.

Are Us citizens who maintain dual citizenship committing perjury?

That was an honest mistake. we all slip up from time to time. I honestly did not think flag burning was something you will get away with. I totally and completely respect the flag of the US. And I am not sure what you are stating is correct either. I have seen a lot of people with multiple nationalities living in the US. I am not sure what does recognizing or not recognizing this even means to be honest. It is not illegal, that's for sure.

 

[Stewie]

You're unnecessarily pushing them into a corner.

Obviously living under Islamic rule, under Quranic law, maybe under a Caliph is an article of faith and no Muslim will deny that he would prefer to live in those circumstances.

However in most cases, in their secret hearts, most know that the better way to live in the modern world is under secular law with sepration of mosque and state under a democratically elected government.

They just cannot fully accept it so the more enlightened will say that no country has been able to implement true Islamic law as prescribed in the Quran. So for now, this modern secular law is acceptable

well that's your belief, and its not entirely accurate.
There are a lot of considerations Muslims have that are handled in such a society that are not addressed under the so-called secular laws. There are some modern day issues that are difficult for a Muslim parents to tackle in the west. For instance LGBTQ++ agenda is now being preached through the school. I am all for their freedoms, even if I don't agree with it. But trying to ram it down elementary school age children is a bit too much. I also believe in modest clothing and covering for our children at such a young age. As parents we struggle with keeping our children close to our values when they see exactly the opposite in their schools.
Teaching them about avoiding alcohol and drugs is another challenge when they get to their teenage years. And last but not least, our children are not supposed to go about having active sexual lives before marriage.

If handled appropriately, these issues should not bother a Muslim in a majority Muslim country. I don't agree with the KSA policies at all, but I love the one they have about drugs in particular.

Anyhow, I would like to respect other people's views and is it too much to ask you guys do the same rather than passing summary judgments about how one feels truly and the difference between that and what one is letting on here on the board?

 

[CricketCartoons]

That was an honest mistake. we all slip up from time to time. I honestly did not think flag burning was something you will get away with. I totally and completely respect the flag of the US. And I am not sure what you are stating is correct either. I have seen a lot of people with multiple nationalities living in the US. I am not sure what does recognizing or not recognizing this even means to be honest. It is not illegal, that's for sure.

Flag is a piece of cloth serving as a symbol of something more fundamental. You should "totally and completely" respect the values and fundamental principles of the country, instead of just "totally and completely" respecting the flag.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Flag is a piece of cloth serving as a symbol of something more fundamental. You should "totally and completely" respect the values and fundamental principles of the country, instead of just "totally and completely" respecting the flag.

Values and fundamentals principles of a country change with time.

 

[Red-Indian]

well that's your belief, and its not entirely accurate.
There are a lot of considerations Muslims have that are handled in such a society that are not addressed under the so-called secular laws. There are some modern day issues that are difficult for a Muslim parents to tackle in the west. For instance LGBTQ++ agenda is now being preached through the school. I am all for their freedoms, even if I don't agree with it. But trying to ram it down elementary school age children is a bit too much. I also believe in modest clothing and covering for our children at such a young age. As parents we struggle with keeping our children close to our values when they see exactly the opposite in their schools.
Teaching them about avoiding alcohol and drugs is another challenge when they get to their teenage years. And last but not least, our children are not supposed to go about having active sexual lives before marriage.

If handled appropriately, these issues should not bother a Muslim in a majority Muslim country. I don't agree with the KSA policies at all, but I love the one they have about drugs in particular.

Anyhow, I would like to respect other people's views and is it too much to ask you guys do the same rather than passing summary judgments about how one feels truly and the difference between that and what one is letting on here on the board?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you've said here is that you do prefer non-religious (I'll avoid secular because we can't seem to agree on the definition) laws of the land but are uncomfortable with some of the ways they're taught...not the laws themselves. For example, you and I are well aware that it is not a law even in the most liberal of countries to be ambiguous about your sexuality, to wear revealing clothing or to have sex before marriage. So you're not uncomfortable with the legal framework itself?

On the controversial "secret hearts" comment, maybe my choice of words was inappropriate but I do believe most Western Muslims do see the benefits of living in a more non-religious, live and let live society rather than one that imposes religion based rules on people. It's why movements for Sharia law get no mass support even in Muslim populations but are restricted to obscure preachers and their followers. It's not just Muslims. Hindus don't go abroad and ask for alcohol stores to be closed on Ram navami. Jews don't insist all establishments have to be closed on Sabbath.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Values and fundamentals principles of a country change with time.

It is true, and the flag will reman the symbol of the new values, the new identity. Which means brother @Stewie will not be able to "totally and completely" respect the flag if those values conflict with his own.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It's not just Muslims. Hindus don't go abroad and ask for alcohol stores to be closed on Ram navami. Jews don't insist all establishments have to be closed on Sabbath.

Again monkey balancing to sound neutral. There are hindus in USA who would want India to have a hindu identity (these hindus are called right wingers), while there are also hindus in USA who fiercely want a secular identity for India.

Show me the muslims in USA who fiercely want secular identity for their country of origin.

You are an expert in monkey balancing but trust me, I'm always the one who pops the balloon.

 

[Stewie]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you've said here is that you do prefer non-religious (I'll avoid secular because we can't seem to agree on the definition) laws of the land but are uncomfortable with some of the ways they're taught...not the laws themselves. For example, you and I are well aware that it is not a law even in the most liberal of countries to be ambiguous about your sexuality, to wear revealing clothing or to have sex before marriage. So you're not uncomfortable with the legal framework itself?

These are not laws but these are trends we see as a result of the non-religious freedoms. I feel the traditional male dominated societies have objectified women and they feel its normal for them to dress in certain ways. we see this even in Pakistan by the way. you wont have this problem under Islamic law. So this is one benefit of it.
Similarly with anything related to sexuality. You are supposed to keep such things to your bedroom. as long as you don't publicize it, I don't think it creates any issues for anyone. Read it how you may.

On the controversial "secret hearts" comment, maybe my choice of words was inappropriate but I do believe most Western Muslims do see the benefits of living in a more non-religious, live and let live society rather than one that imposes religion based rules on people. It's why movements for Sharia law get no mass support even in Muslim populations but are restricted to obscure preachers and their followers. It's not just Muslims. Hindus don't go abroad and ask for alcohol stores to be closed on Ram navami. Jews don't insist all establishments have to be closed on Sabbath.

I am utterly confused by this last part, and I have no idea what you are trying to say here and its relevance to what I may have stated in the past.

I am not a proponent of imposing Islamic law in a country where you don't have majority Muslims living, I hope you understand that.

 

[Red-Indian]

I am utterly confused by this last part, and I have no idea what you are trying to say here and its relevance to what I may have stated in the past.

I am not a proponent of imposing Islamic law in a country where you don't have majority Muslims living, I hope you understand that.

Yes I do. And I think unlike claims by some on here, most religious folks when they move to the west and experience freedoms realise that living under non-religious laws is preferable even to living under laws of your own religion. Yes there are defects in a secular societal structure - some of which you have enumerated but the freedoms make up for them and more.

 

[Stewie]

Yes I do. And I think unlike claims by some on here, most religious folks when they move to the west and experience freedoms realise that living under non-religious laws is preferable even to living under laws of your own religion. Yes there are defects in a secular societal structure - some of which you have enumerated but the freedoms make up for them and more.

I am not sure what freedoms those are, but I don't feel my freedoms would be truncated in an Islamic society if I am a Muslim.

You are perhaps confusing the issue of lack of lawlessness and justice in some Muslim countries with living under laws of religion. I know you have made comments about this in the past that its an "excuse" but I will stand by claim that proper Islamic laws are not enforced in many countries that I personally of and it is not an excuse. You have to be a student of any such philosophies to fully make that determination. Simply being exposed to various issues within Muslim countries not related to the laws or poor interpretation and implementation of the said laws will not give you enough know how to reasonably analyze this claim.

 

[HalBass9]

Yes I do. And I think unlike claims by some on here, most religious folks when they move to the west and experience freedoms realise that living under non-religious laws is preferable even to living under laws of your own religion. Yes there are defects in a secular societal structure - some of which you have enumerated but the freedoms make up for them and more.

You make it seem as if you think every Muslim country is just Iran with a different accent.

 

[HalBass9]

You make it seem as if you think every Muslim country is just Iran with a different accent.

Even better example would be Afghanistan under Taliban rule.

 

[HalBass9]

Yes I do. And I think unlike claims by some on here, most religious folks when they move to the west and experience freedoms realise that living under non-religious laws is preferable even to living under laws of your own religion. Yes there are defects in a secular societal structure - some of which you have enumerated but the freedoms make up for them and more.

The motivation behind migration has much more to do with quality of life than with religion or religious freedom. As Muslims, we’re generally free to practice our faith in our home countries. When I talk about quality of life, I’m referring to better housing, improved facilities, and superior infrastructure. Let’s be real, most Pakistanis would happily move to any Arab or Western country for these reasons. On the other hand, a wealthy Arab is likely to stay in their home country because their quality of life is already top-notch there.

People move for a better life, not because they’re seeking secularism or religious freedom, unless, of course, they’re Iranian. Honestly, I have yet to meet an Iranian who still identifies as Muslim after settling in the West.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I am not sure what freedoms those are, but I don't feel my freedoms would be truncated in an Islamic society if I am a Muslim.

You are perhaps confusing the issue of lack of lawlessness and justice in some Muslim countries with living under laws of religion. I know you have made comments about this in the past that its an "excuse" but I will stand by claim that proper Islamic laws are not enforced in many countries that I personally of and it is not an excuse. You have to be a student of any such philosophies to fully make that determination. Simply being exposed to various issues within Muslim countries not related to the laws or poor interpretation and implementation of the said laws will not give you enough know how to reasonably analyze this claim.

If laws cannot be interpreted correctly by few, then it is their problem, but if none can correctly interpret the laws, then the problem lies in the texts.

Implementation is another issue. No law can be enforced fully, but as long as only minor violations escape the law, it is still meaningful.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The motivation behind migration has much more to do with quality of life than with religion or religious freedom. As Muslims, we’re generally free to practice our faith in our home countries. When I talk about quality of life, I’m referring to better housing, improved facilities, and superior infrastructure. Let’s be real, most Pakistanis would happily move to any Arab or Western country for these reasons. On the other hand, a wealthy Arab is likely to stay in their home country because their quality of life is already top-notch there.

People move for a better life, not because they’re seeking secularism or religious freedom, unless, of course, they’re Iranian. Honestly, I have yet to meet an Iranian who still identifies as Muslim after settling in the West.

Agree with this.

Although brother @Red-Indian thinks muslims migrate to the west in search of secularism or lack of religious laws.

 

[Champ_Pal]

The motivation behind migration has much more to do with quality of life than with religion or religious freedom. As Muslims, we’re generally free to practice our faith in our home countries. When I talk about quality of life, I’m referring to better housing, improved facilities, and superior infrastructure. Let’s be real, most Pakistanis would happily move to any Arab or Western country for these reasons. On the other hand, a wealthy Arab is likely to stay in their home country because their quality of life is already top-notch there.

People move for a better life, not because they’re seeking secularism or religious freedom, unless, of course, they’re Iranian. Honestly, I have yet to meet an Iranian who still identifies as Muslim after settling in the West.

Good post. However, if there is no patriotism involved with the newly adopted country, the loyalties of the immigrants will always be questioned.
The natives or the people who have been living in that newly adopted country will be super upset when the immigrants still support their country of origin or their faith based patriotism.

Multiculturalism does not work if the loyalties are divided between multiple countries or nations. It will only be tolerated by the majority. All it needs is a little spark of fire and riots will engulf the country.

We take the Oath for a reason when taking the citizenship. If people are lying while taking Oath, the entire ceremony becomes a joke.

 

[Red-Indian]

I am not sure what freedoms those are, but I don't feel my freedoms would be truncated in an Islamic society if I am a Muslim.

You are perhaps confusing the issue of lack of lawlessness and justice in some Muslim countries with living under laws of religion. I know you have made comments about this in the past that its an "excuse" but I will stand by claim that proper Islamic laws are not enforced in many countries that I personally of and it is not an excuse. You have to be a student of any such philosophies to fully make that determination. Simply being exposed to various issues within Muslim countries not related to the laws or poor interpretation and implementation of the said laws will not give you enough know how to reasonably analyze this claim.

I'm very well aware I'm no expert on Islamic law. Just as I'm not an expert in Judeo-Christian law or even Hindu law which was my religion growing up. But I've heard the same sentence from all of them. In a perfect <insert appropriate religious legal system>, everyone would be happy. It's us imperfect human's fault that we're not able to implement the perfect laws that <insert god of choice> has handed to us.

Usually when I ask which country has managed to implement these perfectly, the reference is to some mythical past a minimum of 400 years ago (usually longer) and some wise ruler.

At some point, it's time to recognise that religious laws, legal structures are not meant for this practical, sinful world. Better to live under secular, liberal laws. My contention is that most educated religious folks do agree but cannot admit it to themselves or to others since that would require too much mental contortions on their belief system.

 

[CricketCartoons]

At some point, it's time to recognise that religious laws, legal structures are not meant for this practical, sinful world. Better to live under secular, liberal laws.

False dichotomy.

 

[Stewie]

I'm very well aware I'm no expert on Islamic law. Just as I'm not an expert in Judeo-Christian law or even Hindu law which was my religion growing up. But I've heard the same sentence from all of them. In a perfect <insert appropriate religious legal system>, everyone would be happy. It's us imperfect human's fault that we're not able to implement the perfect laws that <insert god of choice> has handed to us.

Usually when I ask which country has managed to implement these perfectly, the reference is to some mythical past a minimum of 400 years ago (usually longer) and some wise ruler.

At some point, it's time to recognise that religious laws, legal structures are not meant for this practical, sinful world. Better to live under secular, liberal laws. My contention is that most educated religious folks do agree but cannot admit it to themselves or to others since that would require too much mental contortions on their belief system.

I think you overburden the concept. Even the so-called secular laws are not properly implemented anywhere. There is always a religious tinge to them or there are other problems with how they go about dealing with certain issues.

e.g; What goes on in India, I don't think anybody needs to detail it here. In the US, we talk about freedoms but even here there are issues with certain laws that bind you or don't exactly consider you qualified enough for the equally free treatment, yes I am referring to the blacks being victims of police brutality. I am referring to how there have been issues with minority housing, an overwhelmingly disproportionate incarceration rates, etc. I am also referring to the treatment of Latinos in general and some Muslims immediately post 9/11. I saw quite a few of my family members pulled over for random checks at airport when most white ones were not "randomly" pulled over. LOL. The Patriot act and how so many Muslims were incarcerated on suspicious without any charges files for years and years.

No system is perfect. And that's because as human beings we try to implement these systems but since human beings are inherently flawed, our implementations cannot be flawless.

Now the western nations in general are better at the "implementation" of equality laws, although still not perfect, and this is where the world countries lack. For instance, in theory India may have a great system for everyone as well but their implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Pakistan is just an utter mess, nothing needs to be even said about how things are run there.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Good post. However, if there is no patriotism involved with the newly adopted country, the loyalties of the immigrants will always be questioned.
The natives or the people who have been living in that newly adopted country will be super upset when the immigrants still support their country of origin or their faith based patriotism.

Multiculturalism does not work if the loyalties are divided between multiple countries or nations. It will only be tolerated by the majority. All it needs is a little spark of fire and riots will engulf the country.

We take the Oath for a reason when taking the citizenship. If people are lying while taking Oath, the entire ceremony becomes a joke.

Which monocultural nation has been more successful than the multicultural ones in the current 21st century?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Which monocultural nation has been more successful than the multicultural ones in the current 21st century?

I am not going to go into which is better. The topic is about loyalties.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Which monocultural nation has been more successful than the multicultural ones in the current 21st century?

The success of the western nations happened when they were monocultural, or at least mono race.

Multiculturalism happened as a result of slavery and colonialism. AFTER the success of this nations.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The success of the western nations happened when they were monocultural, or at least mono race.

Multiculturalism happened as a result of slavery and colonialism. AFTER the success of this nations.

Then why has every European country gone racing down the same plughole after watching the USA power ahead since independence from Britain? By that yardstick, Europeans should have been top of the tree by the 1960s and the USA in terminal decline.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I am not going to go into which is better. The topic is about loyalties.

It was you who claimed "Multiculturalism does not work if the loyalties are divided between multiple countries or nations". If you can't back such statements then perhaps think before posting them.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Then why has every European country gone racing down the same plughole after watching the USA power ahead since independence from Britain? By that yardstick, Europeans should have been top of the tree by the 1960s and the USA in terminal decline.

Are you saying that multiculturalism leads to decline? It depends. Because all cultures are not same.

Multiculturalism had NO role in the success of the western countries. They had reached their peak when they were single race.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It was you who claimed "Multiculturalism does not work if the loyalties are divided between multiple countries or nations". If you can't back such statements then perhaps think before posting them.

Exactly. Lets still to loyalties. Not the benefits of Multi vs Mono.

If you want to discuss the benefits of each, you can open a new discussion.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The motivation behind migration has much more to do with quality of life than with religion or religious freedom. As Muslims, we’re generally free to practice our faith in our home countries. When I talk about quality of life, I’m referring to better housing, improved facilities, and superior infrastructure. Let’s be real, most Pakistanis would happily move to any Arab or Western country for these reasons. On the other hand, a wealthy Arab is likely to stay in their home country because their quality of life is already top-notch there.

People move for a better life, not because they’re seeking secularism or religious freedom, unless, of course, they’re Iranian. Honestly, I have yet to meet an Iranian who still identifies as Muslim after settling in the West.

Muslims from UP and IIOJK too.

 

[HalBass9]

Good post. However, if there is no patriotism involved with the newly adopted country, the loyalties of the immigrants will always be questioned.
The natives or the people who have been living in that newly adopted country will be super upset when the immigrants still support their country of origin or their faith based patriotism.

Multiculturalism does not work if the loyalties are divided between multiple countries or nations. It will only be tolerated by the majority. All it needs is a little spark of fire and riots will engulf the country.

We take the Oath for a reason when taking the citizenship. If people are lying while taking Oath, the entire ceremony becomes a joke.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to imply here.

However, it appears you might be conflating the concepts of criticism, the right to protest, and not blindly agreeing with government policies with a lack of loyalty to one’s country.

If that distinction escapes you, it might be more fitting for you to remain in India, as embracing these principles is fundamental to truly understanding and living the American experience.

 

[Red-Indian]

I think you overburden the concept. Even the so-called secular laws are not properly implemented anywhere. There is always a religious tinge to them or there are other problems with how they go about dealing with certain issues.

e.g; What goes on in India, I don't think anybody needs to detail it here. In the US, we talk about freedoms but even here there are issues with certain laws that bind you or don't exactly consider you qualified enough for the equally free treatment, yes I am referring to the blacks being victims of police brutality. I am referring to how there have been issues with minority housing, an overwhelmingly disproportionate incarceration rates, etc. I am also referring to the treatment of Latinos in general and some Muslims immediately post 9/11. I saw quite a few of my family members pulled over for random checks at airport when most white ones were not "randomly" pulled over. LOL. The Patriot act and how so many Muslims were incarcerated on suspicious without any charges files for years and years.

No system is perfect. And that's because as human beings we try to implement these systems but since human beings are inherently flawed, our implementations cannot be flawless.

Now the western nations in general are better at the "implementation" of equality laws, although still not perfect, and this is where the world countries lack. For instance, in theory India may have a great system for everyone as well but their implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Pakistan is just an utter mess, nothing needs to be even said about how things are run there.

I disagree with nothing you've said.

My point in addition is - yes it's possible in theory to design great (or perfect) religious and non-religious legal structures and systems - communism, libertarian every man for himselfism, Islam, Hinduism etc. However, it's impossible to perfectly implement any of them.

In such cases, the best system to live under is the one that delivers the least worst results even when imperfectly implemented. That for now atleast is a democratic, liberal, separation of church/mosque/temple driven legal and societal framework.

 

[Stewie]

I disagree with nothing you've said.

My point in addition is - yes it's possible in theory to design great (or perfect) religious and non-religious legal structures and systems - communism, libertarian every man for himselfism, Islam, Hinduism etc. However, it's impossible to perfectly implement any of them.

In such cases, the best system to live under is the one that delivers the least worst results even when imperfectly implemented. That for now atleast is a democratic, liberal, separation of church/mosque/temple driven legal and societal framework.

Agreed

 

[CricketCartoons]

I disagree with nothing you've said.

My point in addition is - yes it's possible in theory to design great (or perfect) religious and non-religious legal structures and systems - communism, libertarian every man for himselfism, Islam, Hinduism etc. However, it's impossible to perfectly implement any of them.

In such cases, the best system to live under is the one that delivers the least worst results even when imperfectly implemented. That for now atleast is a democratic, liberal, separation of church/mosque/temple driven legal and societal framework.

LOL. Because any ideology cannot have its legal system implemented perfectly, so let us go for democratic driven legal system?

So legal system will be decided by the biases and prejudice of the democracy, which means tyranny of majority and populism.

Where do you come up with such ideas?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Are you saying that multiculturalism leads to decline? It depends. Because all cultures are not same.

Multiculturalism had NO role in the success of the western countries. They had reached their peak when they were single race.

No, I'm saying the opposite. I live in a multicultural country where hundreds of thousands are still flocking from monocultural nations including your own which is supposedly headed for superpower status by 2020 2030 2050. I cannot fathom living in a monocultural society without seeing an example of a successful one today.

 

[Local.Dada]

I think it is easy when it is binary - country of birth vs country being lived in.

It becomes more challenging when it is 1 country (+ many other countries that you pick and chose that suits narrative to win arguments and rub it into rivals) vs 1 country

 

[RexRex]

No, I'm saying the opposite. I live in a multicultural country where hundreds of thousands are still flocking from monocultural nations including your own which is supposedly headed for superpower status by 2020 2030 2050. I cannot fathom living in a monocultural society without seeing an example of a successful one today.

India is not a monocultural country though, not sure where you got that idea from .. it is far more diverse than the USA. Many even think that the diversity in India is what impedes its progress because it leads to divisive identity based politics rather than the politics of development.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India is not a monocultural country though, not sure where you got that idea from .. it is far more diverse than the USA. Many even think that the diversity in India is what impedes its progress because it leads to divisive identity based politics rather than the politics of development.

I think we have different ideas about what constitutes diversity. India is mainly filled with brown people who eat curry and talk some different dialects. USA has people from all over the globe, Africa, Asia, Europe and the middle east.

 

[Stewie]

India is not a monocultural country though, not sure where you got that idea from .. it is far more diverse than the USA. Many even think that the diversity in India is what impedes its progress because it leads to divisive identity based politics rather than the politics of development.

you all want to identify or forcefully classify various faiths in the land as Dharma Santanis which is a very recently reclassified term and you are preaching diversity? Seriously? haha..

Diversity is when you have various races from different parts of the world and faiths living together. India has more diversity of languages, but that's where it all ends.

 

[RexRex]

I think we have different ideas about what constitutes diversity. India is mainly filled with brown people who eat curry and talk some different dialects. USA has people from all over the globe, Africa, Asia, Europe and the middle east.

The dominant culture is still pretty much white english protestant, which other immigrants usually assimilate into.

 

[RexRex]

Diversity is when you have various races from different parts of the world and faiths living together. India has more diversity of languages, but that's where it all ends.

No, I don't think diversity simply means different shades of melanin and skull features - that's a superficial way of looking at it.

 

[RexRex]

you all want to identify or forcefully classify various faiths in the land as Dharma Santanis which is a very recently reclassified term and you are preaching diversity? Seriously? haha..

who is 'you all' ? I don't recall ever saying anything about Dharma or whatever.

 

[Stewie]

The dominant culture is still pretty much white english protestant, which other immigrants usually assimilate into.

No, I don't think diversity simply means different shades of melanin and skull features - that's a superficial way of looking at it.

In the US there is white English protestants, there are the Irish, Italians, Polish, etc in the NE, there is the French Cajun influence in Louisana, there is the Mexican and other Latino culture very dominant and visible in the southern states and now there are Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Africans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, (not African Americans but immigrants from Africa) in mostly all major metro areas of the country and even in smaller cities where they have settled refugees and immigrants.

It is a LOT more diverse than you think.

 

[Stewie]

who is 'you all' ? I don't recall ever saying anything about Dharma or whatever.

Sure, you are not part of the Hindustva Brigade so this does not apply to you but it does to quite a few Hindu posters here.

 

[Local.Dada]

I think we have different ideas about what constitutes diversity. India is mainly filled with brown people who eat curry and talk some different dialects. USA has people from all over the globe, Africa, Asia, Europe and the middle east.

Yeah your idea of diversity is definitely different for sure. USA is a country of built by immigrants.i can see that point. European countries are not. Yes they have laws which accommodates immigrants. Ideally the idea was to recruit skilled immigrants to build their infrastructure and assimilate them in their culture but I guess eventually it got out of hand and some of the next gen of those immigrants lost the skills of their ancestors and probably have become rabid nusiance makers. Obviously not all but the ones who stick out.

 

[HalBass9]

Yeah your idea of diversity is definitely different for sure. USA is a country of built by immigrants.i can see that point. European countries are not. Yes they have laws which accommodates immigrants. Ideally the idea was to recruit skilled immigrants to build their infrastructure and assimilate them in their culture but I guess eventually it got out of hand and some of the next gen of those immigrants lost the skills of their ancestors and probably have become rabid nusiance makers. Obviously not all but the ones who stick out.

And your point is?

 

[Local.Dada]

And your point is?

Point is- countries like India have diversity among their indigenous population. It’s not racial diversity exactly.

Countries like Australia and USA the indigenous population is pretty much non-existent. Reasons for that is a different debate but they are primarily countries built by immigrants.

European countries have indigenous local piloularions + immigrants who assimilated or non-assimilated but have the passport maybe.

Apples to oranges.

Hope that helps and the larger point was to tell the guy, to think through a little with his next provocative post.

 

[HalBass9]

Point is- countries like India have diversity among their indigenous population. It’s not racial diversity exactly.

Countries like Australia and USA the indigenous population is pretty much non-existent. Reasons for that is a different debate but they are primarily countries built by immigrants.

European countries have indigenous local piloularions + immigrants who assimilated or non-assimilated but have the passport maybe.

Apples to oranges.

Hope that helps and the larger point was to tell the guy, to think through a little with his next provocative post.

Could you clarify your point regarding assimilation and its relevance to our discussion? How does it connect with the topic at hand?

In 2024, England indeed has a multicultural population representing diverse global communities. However, your argument remains unclear. It seems either you’re uncertain about the subject matter, or your focus on denigrating Pakistan while defending India is obstructing your ability to present a coherent argument.

 

[nuttyprof]

No, I'm saying the opposite. I live in a multicultural country where hundreds of thousands are still flocking from monocultural nations including your own which is supposedly headed for superpower status by 2020 2030 2050. I cannot fathom living in a monocultural society without seeing an example of a successful one today.

England is a monocultural society and is officially a Christian country.

 

[sweep_shot]

England is a monocultural society and is officially a Christian country.

How is England monocultural? It is extremely multicultural currently just like all other western countries.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No, I'm saying the opposite. I live in a multicultural country where hundreds of thousands are still flocking from monocultural nations including your own which is supposedly headed for superpower status by 2020 2030 2050. I cannot fathom living in a monocultural society without seeing an example of a successful one today.

Your assumption that somehow multiculturalism is related to success is wrong, because all the success happened when these nations were mono cultural. All western nations are example of successful monocultural societies.

Even beduins of arabia became successful when they became monocultural: One God, one book, one Prophet.

ps: India is a multi cultural country.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

England is a monocultural society and is officially a Christian country.

Ok maybe we should tell the 1.5m Indians to leave then so the figures can tally to your statement.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Your assumption that somehow multiculturalism is related to success is wrong, because all the success happened when these nations were mono cultural. All western nations are example of successful monocultural societies.

Even beduins of arabia became successful when they became monocultural: One God, one book, one Prophet.

ps: India is a multi cultural country.

All I am saying is that everyone wants to live in the multicultural nations like USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc. Why aren't they queueing up to live in monocultural societies like Bharat, Gambia or Poland?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yeah your idea of diversity is definitely different for sure. USA is a country of built by immigrants.i can see that point. European countries are not. Yes they have laws which accommodates immigrants. Ideally the idea was to recruit skilled immigrants to build their infrastructure and assimilate them in their culture but I guess eventually it got out of hand and some of the next gen of those immigrants lost the skills of their ancestors and probably have become rabid nusiance makers. Obviously not all but the ones who stick out.

That's quite funny the part about European countries bringing in skilled immigrants to build their infrastructure. Seems like all those skilled immigrants must have left their home nations in one fell swoop since the countries they came from like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan pretty much still look the same.

 

[nuttyprof]

Ok maybe we should tell the 1.5m Indians to leave then so the figures can tally to your statement.

By that token, UAE/KSA is a multicultural society.

 

[nuttyprof]

Your assumption that somehow multiculturalism is related to success is wrong, because all the success happened when these nations were mono cultural. All western nations are example of successful monocultural societies.

Even beduins of arabia became successful when they became monocultural: One God, one book, one Prophet.

ps: India is a multi cultural country.

Not worth it… Difficult to get through!!

 

[sweep_shot]

By that token, UAE/KSA is a multicultural society.

Wrong comparison.

UAE/KSA expats are not citizens of those countries. They have work permits.

Majority of the immigrants in west are already citizens or are working toward citizenships.

Western countries are all multicultural now. Only a random Indian person who has never set foot outside of India may say otherwise.

 

[CricketCartoons]

All I am saying is that everyone wants to live in the multicultural nations like USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc. Why aren't they queueing up to live in monocultural societies like Bharat, Gambia or Poland?

Because these nations are developed and provide freedom. Multicutural is a side effect, not the cause behind their success.

 

[RexRex]

In the US there is white English protestants, there are the Irish, Italians, Polish, etc in the NE, there is the French Cajun influence in Louisana, there is the Mexican and other Latino culture very dominant and visible in the southern states and now there are Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalis, Africans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, (not African Americans but immigrants from Africa) in mostly all major metro areas of the country and even in smaller cities where they have settled refugees and immigrants.

It is a LOT more diverse than you think.

It is still a predominantly white english-speaking Christian country. Spanish language being a distant second.

It is only diverse in a particular sense.. in that people immigrate drip drip from all over the world and join the original inhabitants of USA... that is in stark contrast to centuries-old diverse communities living aside each other in India, which have about two dozen languages and several religions.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

By that token, UAE/KSA is a multicultural society.

They are multicultural societies, and all the better for it. I wouldn't step foot in such places if all you were going to see was Arabs with angry wives in tow because they had no nannies to look after their broods.

 

[CricketCartoons]

They are multicultural societies, and all the better for it. I wouldn't step foot in such places if all you were going to see was Arabs with angry wives in tow because they had no nannies to look after their broods.

Culture should be the dominant culture of the nation. Not fragmented cultures, especially from third worlders who bring some undesirable culture to the country they migrate to. Multi racial, mono cultural, that is what I like. I hate multi culturalism.

 

[RexRex]

They are multicultural societies, and all the better for it. I wouldn't step foot in such places if all you were going to see was Arabs with angry wives in tow because they had no nannies to look after their broods.

True .. but as cricket_cartoons rightly said, every prosperous country in the world today became wealthy when they were largely homogenous in demography, that is undeniable.

 

[Local.Dada]

That's quite funny the part about European countries bringing in skilled immigrants to build their infrastructure. Seems like all those skilled immigrants must have left their home nations in one fell swoop since the countries they came from like Bangladesh, India and Pakistan pretty much still look the same.

Well with all due respect that’s a discussion you need to have with Rishwat sr. My greetings to him.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

True .. but as cricket_cartoons rightly said, every prosperous country in the world today became wealthy when they were largely homogenous in demography, that is undeniable.

What use is that to me? I don't have a time machine to go back to 1880. Right now the happening places are all multicultural, no one wants to be in the monocultural nations of the present times.

 

[Stewie]

It is still a predominantly white english-speaking Christian country. Spanish language being a distant second.

It is only diverse in a particular sense.. in that people immigrate drip drip from all over the world and join the original inhabitants of USA... that is in stark contrast to centuries-old diverse communities living aside each other in India, which have about two dozen languages and several religions.

I think its still subjective. Most Indians have very similar eating habits, for example and they are very similar to Pakistanis. We all like spicy stuff, and whatnot, (if you put a side the vegetarian and meat preferences aside) The languages are dissimilar but we all have a lot of similar cultural traditions. we also do not look extravagantly different from each other. How many people of black, brown, oriental, white ethnicities live in India?

There is a china town, desi town, African area in almost every big to medium size US city. Sure they are economic migrants but the diversity is a lot more pronounced.

India may have a natively more diverse population though

 

[CricketCartoons]

I think its still subjective. Most Indians have very similar eating habits, for example and they are very similar to Pakistanis. We all like spicy stuff, and whatnot, (if you put a side the vegetarian and meat preferences aside) The languages are dissimilar but we all have a lot of similar cultural traditions. we also do not look extravagantly different from each other. How many people of black, brown, oriental, white ethnicities live in India?

There is a china town, desi town, African area in almost every big to medium size US city. Sure they are economic migrants but the diversity is a lot more pronounced.

India may have a natively more diverse population though

Diversity is an umbrella term. India has more ethnic, linguistic, religious and economic diversity. USA has more racial diversity.

 

[arunp]

Wrong comparison.

UAE/KSA expats are not citizens of those countries. They have work permits.

Majority of the immigrants in west are already citizens or are working toward citizenships.

Western countries are all multicultural now. Only a random Indian person who has never set foot outside of India may say otherwise.

How so.... USA is predominantly a Christian country. The head of state in England(monarch) has to be the head of church of England. England is officially a christian country. Economic migrants are different than homogenous society.

 

[Stewie]

when they start selling chai latte at starbucks, and eat things like tacos and quesadillas pretty much across the board along with naan bread, steaks, burgers, corn bread and lasagna, pizza, etc well you know its become truly multicultural.

Let me know when you guys start eating yummy delicious steak fajitas and chili, Indians.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Diversity is an umbrella term. India has more ethnic, linguistic, religious and economic diversity. USA has more racial diversity.

This is like saying there is more diversity in Indian cooking because dhaal can be cooked dry, with coconut oil or if we are really feeling adventurous, mustard oil.

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is like saying there is more diversity in Indian cooking because dhaal can be cooked dry, with coconut oil or if we are really feeling adventurous, mustard oil.

Are you implying that only racial diversity is the real one, and other diversities are either fake or minor variations?

Then you should know that these very diversities have led to massacres. Punjabi hindus and punjabi muslims, despite the "very minor" variation killed each other. west pakistanis killed east pakistanis due to this "minor variation".

Even race is a minor variation, because 99.9% of DNA of all humans are identical. Diversity is diversity.

 

[Stewie]

This is like saying there is more diversity in Indian cooking because dhaal can be cooked dry, with coconut oil or if we are really feeling adventurous, mustard oil.

But when they try to make daal gosht, they will most likely get lynched and burnt, let’s not forget to mention that.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Are you implying that only racial diversity is the real one, and other diversities are either fake or minor variations?

Then you should know that these very diversities have led to massacres. Punjabi hindus and punjabi muslims, despite the "very minor" variation killed each other. west pakistanis killed east pakistanis due to this "minor variation".

Even race is a minor variation, because 99.9% of DNA of all humans are identical. Diversity is diversity.

All that proves is that they are minor diversities since they all indulge in the same stupid behaviour which is common to the subcontinent. Might be a reason why you will see very little difference in general culture across all three nations which were partitioned.

 

[CricketCartoons]

All that proves is that they are minor diversities since they all indulge in the same stupid behaviour which is common to the subcontinent. Might be a reason why you will see very little difference in general culture across all three nations which were partitioned.

If these are minor, then so is racial diversity minor. If people kill each other and refuse to share a country because of these "minor" diversities, then what can be bigger diversity than this?

This is not just subcontinent. It is global. Rwandan genocide, Syria civil war, Iraq shia/sunni war, Nigeria boko haram, Ireland..more than just racial diversity.