Stav, I understand what you mean by painting people with one brush, but
many Muslims- especially poor ones are going to be very religious. They
are going to paint the West with one brush. They understand Sharia law,
not Democratic law. This is what they base their values on.
Perhaps
some or many hold negative views to varying degrees of the West. Do you
think slamming the asylum door in their face is going to change that?
Perhaps they actually might become quite positive towards the country
that helped them in their hour of need. Do you also not think there is a
chance they might moderate their views after living in the liberalized
west and being exposed to the western way for several years. And even if
a majority of refugees hold a negative view of the west, what
percentage of those would ever act in a violent or dangerous manner due
to those feeling?
Now you might so Islam is too extreme too
moderate over time . But if you go back into history and think about say
the time of the Crusades, Christianity back then was far more extreme
than anything we have now but it moderated in time.
Its also
irrelevant what law they understand. Sharia law is not in effect in any
western countries. They have to obey the laws of the land that they live in
end of story. If they don't they can be sent to jail or deported.
Muslims create riots in the EU because of wars inside Muslim countries
when it does not even involve the country where they are staying
And
non Muslims riot too. Only a month or so back anti immigrant far right
wing rioters trashed the city center of Dublin. Recently in Ireland
several properties ear marked to house asylum seekers in Ireland have
been burned down, the most recent one was burned down after a incorrect rumor
started that the property to was house asylum seekers when it was in
fact ear marked to house homeless people (not refugees). All coming off
the back right wing anti immigrant misinformation. One rumor going
around was that police where handing out notification of a 6PM curfew
for women due to the arrival of refugees in a town.
Now if
you happen to be referring to the events on Armistice day in the UK
where a massive Pro-Palestinian rally took place calling for peace in
Gaza (you know what better do they do it on than the day that
commemorates the guns falling silent), the vast majority of those who took part did so
peacefully, yes their was some pro-hamas signs and other distasteful
signs and slogans. There was also several arrests among those in the
rally, but you're talking a handful of out and 300,000 but significantly
less than from the far right counter rally that took place that day which
unbelievably was incited by the home secretary.
For example, picking up cars and dropping them upside down in the road,
burning shops, looting etc, etc. They burnt down a house last year of a
town Mayor, who was fortunate to not be home at the time.
You mean like this mayor in France who's house was burned down for supporting immigrants?
https://apnews.com/article/france-migrants-mayor-resign-fire-town-87194f39fe88921a841a930b608c4d42
Now
this isn't to excuse criminal and extremist behavior by Muslims or to
say that integrating muslims into western society is easy and without
challenges. But you need to look at the whole picture and by mindful of the sheer
amount of disinformation out there.
When Muslims are at war it often seems that if one side is bad, then the other side is good.
So the winning side is bad, but if the losing side was winning would they be any different?
Well
there isn't a yes or no answer to that. Take Syria, I think a victory
for the Free State Syrian Army would of been better than Assad winning
but honestly I don't know much about them, Assad winning was probably
better than Islamic state. That's a choice between the lesser of two
evils. Again its complex. Sometimes you have only bad choices, some
times the choice is clearly easier to make, like in the case of the
Taliban's return in Afghanistan.
If they are struggling to live alongside other Muslims, how are they going to cope in a liberal country?
Probably
much easier, because they are not going to be killed for being a member
of a different sect of Islam or also to do with the fact they are not
leaving under some Authoritarian regime but countries that value human
life.
The average birth rate is 1.7% in many countries in the world.
If you import people who have 10 kids on average (10% rate), they will eventually become the majority.
In time they will want affirmative action laws (like in South Africa)
where certain jobs are reserved for people who are not white- to balance
past injustices.
Usually the driver of high birth rates is
poverty. With a higher standard of living the birth rate will likely
decrease among muslims living in the west. For muslims to reach a
majority population in western countries your talking a process that
would take decades, and that's assuming current high levels of
immigration rates remain the same. But also even if sometime in the
future muslims become the majority in a western state you also have to
assume that all Muslims would want Sharia law and vote it in. After
decades living in a liberal society, who knows by then a substantial
minority or even a majority of them may prefer not to have any form of sharia law
implemented.
China created laws to reduce population growth and following this,
they have turned into a world power. Now the birth rate is the same as
in the West, Japan, South Korea etc.
Well the one child policy wasn't what turned China into an economic power and China now has a
demographic time bomb on its hands because its population is declining at quite a rate and I'm seeing increasing economic predictions that China is set to follow the Japanese into economic
stagnation.
3rd world countries have the slowest growing economies, but the fastest
growing population - so they are creating their own problems.
Religion isn't the primary driver of that though.