Jon Snow, considered one of the more thinking broadcasters, has said that Muslims are not integrating in a Sunday Times article.
His evidence is that we are practising our religion more:
We were attempting to delve behind the results of the most comprehensive survey to date of Muslim opinion in Britain. Conducted by NOP for Channel 4’s Dispatches, one of its most startling results suggested that Muslim integration into British society has effectively come to a halt.
Immigrants have usually tended to become more secular and less religious than their parents by the second generation. But the survey shows Muslims have gone in precisely the opposite direction.
And call the anti-terror police:
It is generally assumed potential radicals come only from deprived areas, but Modood confirms that the well-off and educated are drawing away just as much. Many youngsters from Bradford are going to university and in a sense having it both ways — benefiting from this country’s facilities but taking with them core beliefs that sometimes lead to separateness.
Indeed, a 19-year-old Muslim studying biomedicine at a London university explained that the very fact of his education had led him to think the way he does. At one point I asked him and his two friends: “You’d like me to become a Muslim, wouldn’t you?” They said I’d be much better for it, and talked about the positive aspects of converting.
More at Pickled Politics from Sunny who reckons we disagree on everything.
There was a similar point to Snow's made by a former US Navy Lieutenant Commander M. Zuhdi Jasser in the Washington Post:
On June 18, the New York Times ran a story by Laura Goodstein, "U.S. Clerics seek a Middle Ground," which highlighted the "moderate" work of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and his colleague, Imam Zaid Shakir. The bulk of this typical story discussed platitudes regarding the personal struggles of these American Muslim leaders and positively anticipated their development of a moderate Muslim seminary. However, nowhere did the New York Times delve into a genuine critical analysis of whether there was a central conflict in the ideology of the Zaytuna Institute, the school mentioned in the New York Times piece, and that of America. Yet, the piece ended with this alarming quotation from Mr. Shakir: "He still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law, not by violent means, but by persuasion." The imam further stated, "Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country," he said. "I think it would help people, and if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it's helped a lot of people in my community."
Not only is this a blatant endorsement of Islamism (theocracy) over Americanism (anti-theocracy), but this imam labels anti-Islamist Muslims dishonest. The radical Islamists are rabidly anti-American from their fear of pluralistic liberty. They are too insecure to give Muslims or any citizens the opportunity to be free and to choose to sin or not. Can mainstream American thought afford to be naive and uncritical about this central theme of Islamist movements? Radical or moderate, regardless of the packaging, the goal of Islamists is to create a Muslim theocracy. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League responded with clarity in his June 23 letter to the New York Times: "Religion flourishes in America because we have no imposed religion, as the founding fathers designed. Imam Zaid Shakir's hope for an America ruled by Islamic law is fundamentally un-American. Our hope is that he is an aberration and that moderate Muslim voices will prevail."
Hamza Yusuf and Zaid Shakir would normally be labelled as 'sufis' who Martin Bright regards as not 'Islamists'. As I've said before, I fail to see the difference and would be grateful if anyone could elucidate.
John Ware finished his recent Interpal film with the scary prospect of Shaikh Yusuf Qaradawi bringing "ideas" to Europe.
UPDATE: Snow's documentary on this went out last night. He has caused controversy by suggesting that not having lots of unmarried sex is un-British. See more at Pickled Politics, and Forceful and Moderate who commented on it.
UPDATE II: Now seen the documentary. Probably the worst film I've seen on British Muslims, and there's a lot of competition. At times I thought Snow had beamed back to the 1970s (partly to do with his fashion sense) and was commenting post-immigration on how different the wogs were.
Could do a line-by-line fisking of it, but am too despondant after recent events. I think the central problem was that Snow interviewed Muslims to prove his poll findings. Those are just poll findings, but need explanation. The fact that Muslims pray, get married, don't drink is not proof of anything. Snow's analysis after each interview was "extremist, no, seperate, yes". The documentary could have done with different analysis and explanation of the results, rather than just his. As such, it was biased.
Nope,
I've never heard of them,
care to give me some references, and stuff like that, so I can go and read them for myself.
Just to prove that the Japanese are actually as prescient as you claim - I wouldn't want to ascribe powers to them of a supernatural nature before I've read the scientific results that proves they are, now would I?
Posted by: joe90 | 12 August 2006 at 12:59 AM