Do Muslims Assimilate, Integrate into American society?

If you look at history of that region of the world up until Colonialism tolerance was there and in fact it was the seat of high culture. Extremism came later, which shows that the Qur'an is not the source of radicalization. But this is an inconvenient truth to the Islam = evil narrative that those who want a clash of civilizations push.

 

No, it wasn't. Even the founder of the religion himself mass murdered Jews. Is that tolerance?

The Koran has plenty of appeals to kill infidels. It also prescribes lesser rights for women and people of other beliefs.

It's not an inconvenient truth. It is simply not true.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/peace.aspx

The Myth:

Muhammad was a peaceful man who taught his followers to be the same. Muslims lived peacefully for centuries, fighting only in self-defense, and only when it was necessary. True Muslims would never act aggressively.

The Truth:

There shouldn't be any argument over who the "true Muslim" is because the Quran clearly distinguishes the true Muslim from the pretender in Sura 9 and elsewhere. According to this - one of the last chapters of the Quran - the true believer "strives and fights with their wealth and persons" while the hypocrites are those who "sit at home," refusing to join the jihad against unbelievers in foreign lands.

The reality is that Muhammad organized 65 military campaigns in the last ten years of his life and personally led 27 of them. The more power that he attained, the smaller the excuse needed to go to battle, until finally he began attacking tribes merely because they were not yet part of his growing empire.

After Muhammad’s death, his successor immediately went to war with former allied tribes which wanted to go their own way. Abu Bakr called them 'apostates' and slaughtered anyone who did not want to remain Muslim. Eventually, he was successful in holding the empire together through blood and violence.

The prophet of Islam's most faithful followers and even his own family soon turned on each other as well. There were four caliphs (leaders) in the first twenty-five years, each of which was a trusted companion of his. Three of these four were murdered. The third caliph was murdered by those allied with the son of the first caliph. The fourth caliph was murdered in the midst of a conflict with the fifth caliph, who began a 100-year dynasty of excess and debauchery that was truncated in a gruesome, widespread bloodbath by descendents of Muhammad’s uncle.

Muhammad’s own daughter, Fatima, and his son-in-law, Ali, who both survived the pagan hardship during the Meccan years safe and sound, did not survive Islam after the death of Muhammad. Fatima died of stress from persecution within three months, and Ali was later assassinated by Muslim rivals. Their son (Muhammad’s grandson) was killed in battle with the faction that became today’s Sunnis. His people became Shias. The relatives and personal friends of Muhammad were mixed into both warring groups, which then fractured further into hostile sub-divisions as Islam expanded.

Muslim apologists, who like to say that is impossible for today's terrorists to be Muslim when they kill fellow Muslims, would have a very tough time explaining the war between Fatima's followers and Aisha to a knowledgeable audience. Muhammad explicitly held both his favorite daughter and his favorite wife as model Muslim women, yet they were invoked respectively by each side in the violent civil war that followed his death. Which one was the "prophet of God" so horribly wrong about?

Muhammad left his men with instructions to take the battle against Christians, Persians, Jews and polytheists (which came to include millions of unfortunate Hindus). For the next four centuries, Muslim armies steamrolled over unsuspecting neighbors, plundering them of loot and slaves, and forcing the survivors to either convert or pay tribute at the point of a sword.

Some companions of Muhammad lived to see Islam declare war on every major religion in the world in just the first few decades following his death - pressing the Jihad against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists.

By the time of the Crusades (when the Europeans began fighting back), the "Religion of Peace" had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world by sword, from Syria to Spain, and across North Africa. Millions of Christians were enslaved by Muslims, and tens of millions of Africans. The Arab slave-trading routes would stay open for 1300 years until pressure from Christian-based countries forced Islamic nations to declare the practice illegal (in theory). To this day, the Muslim world has never apologized for the victims of Jihad and slavery.

There is not another religion in the world that consistently produces terrorism in the name of God as does Islam. The most dangerous Muslims are nearly always those who interpret the Quran most transparently. They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in Muhammad’s mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not submit. In the absence of true infidels, they will even turn on each other.

The holy texts of Islam are saturated with verses of violence and hatred toward those outside the faith, as well as the aforementioned "hypocrites" (Muslims who don't act like Muslims). In sharp contrast to the Bible, which generally moves from relatively violent episodes to far more peaceful mandates, the Quran travels the exact opposite path (violence is first forbidden, then permitted, then mandatory). The handful of earlier verses that speak of tolerance are overwhelmed by an avalanche of later ones that carry a much different message. While Old Testament verses of blood and guts are generally bound by historical context within the text itself, Quranic imperatives to violence usually appear open-ended and subject to personal interpretation.

From the history of the faith to its most sacred writings, those who want to believe in "peaceful Islam" have a lot more to ignore than do the terrorists. By any objective measure, the "Religion of Peace" has been the harshest, bloodiest religion the world has ever known. In Islam there is no peace unless Muslims have power - and even then...

 

Obviously Muhammed had his faults. There is no doubt he can be classified as a war lord. That being said, I don't judge all religious groups and persons by the life, times and writings of their respective prophets. My understanding is that many Christiams don't follow Mosaic law (diet, circumcision, etc). Likewise it is my understanding that members of other Abrahamic religious do likewise.

That said, it shouldn't excuse a critical examination of the prophetical figures.

 

Again, if you look at the Muslim world in the 1300's it wasn't the savage warring entity - it was the seat of higher learning and education in the world. People want to blame essentially a mythological figure for terrorism today and skip over the 1000 years in between.

The point is that you can't just go by a religious text - if that's the case should not people be condemned for looking at the Old Testament? Christianity had it's violent crusades and Inquisition, and anti-gay and witch-hunts for anyone who was blasphemous. So as someone who is secular I see a massive hypocrisy here. If Christianity can reform, why can't Islam?

 

This is hogwash. Islam spread by conquest and murder - from day one.

 

I went to a private Baptist school. So did my brother, cousins and numerous Muslim friends. We paid for and sat through chapel for 2 semesters including taking Old and New Testament. If that's not assimilation, I'm not sure what is.

 

Then why don't you explain how Islam spread throughout Asia and Africa and yet there are still plenty of Christians and Hindus? How can you explain that extremism like the Muslim Brotherhood is a fairly modern creation - which by the way is the forefather to many extremist groups?

You have pointed towards Muhammed but haven't addressed much of that which contradicts your narrative.

 

Obviously you have not really read anything in the Qu'ran or the Hadith. Do yourself a favor and actually read the teachings. You will be doing yourself a favor so you don't look like such an uneducated fool on this subject. It is all there in black and white if you care to actually read it instead of spewing uneducated BS about peace and enlightenment.

 

Because some fought back? Did the Nazis completely eliminate the Jews? Why do Jewish people exist today? Didn't the Nazis commit mass genocide targeting Jews?

 

The truth lies somewhere in between maybe. I think US Muslims do a much better job of integrating then European Muslims. One of the biggest factors I think is the the sect of Islam one grows up with. Shias (and I grew up as a Shia) are more prone to adept to Western culture and values. IMO Sunnis, who believe more in a strict interpretation of the Quran have a more difficult time accepting Western culture at face value.

 

Actually Shias are known to be quite the conspiracy theorists when it comes to how Muhammad's legacy was written after his death. Many of them believe that individuals like Abu Bakr and Aisha had it against Muhammad and thus spread all the not so flattering violent and sex craved depictions of Muhammad.

 

Growing up Ismaili myself, this is not remotely close to what we were taught in our Sunday class.

 

Can't speak for Sufis, but i grew up an Ismaili. Quran really wasn't emphasized much in our mosques. The difference between Sunis and Shias is that Shias believed in a line of Imams after Muhammed. Aga Khan, the current imam for Ismailis always preaches tolerance, education and integration in the community one resides in. Perhaps that is why Ismailis seem to get better integrated in the communities they live in.

 

They are also singled out by the Wahabi faithful for being heretics. Groups like Daesh and Al Qaeda go out of their way to make life miserable for them and they are invisible to most westerners.

The Druze and Ismaelis and the history of all the offshoots of Shia in general is pretty fascinating to me.

 

lol poor bumbling blubbering Charlie Rose

can't decide if Maher is brave or oblivious to the physical danger he puts himself in with these comments

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.mrctv.org/embed/129230" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Are you saying the Moghuls were committing genocide in India?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

They were Muslims. They ruled over India. And yet it sure doesn't sound like the Nazi Party.

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...on-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

Read and learn. And if you think their is bias they cite their sources so you can check to see if their sources are sound(I did).

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lniQLntLPQs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>