Wherever Muslims have a majority within a nation, that nation has a cultural theme, specific laws, and defacto practices which which are broadly antithetical to western culture, laws and practices.
This is the root of Islamophobia.
Whatever technical defense might be mounted about the core principles of Islam; whatever statistics might be leveraged about how many Muslims are actually going to kill innocent Westerners; whatever support might be advanced for worthy individuals–it does not outweigh the obvious. Islam-majority nations are radically different from western democratic nations, and they are different in a qualitative way that is at odds with democratic nations.
Suspicion against Muslim immigrants does not derive from some sort of irrational, unfair bias against “Muslims.” Indeed, democratic nations have a reasonably good track record of permitting kooks of any persuasion to remain kooks–as long as they keep their silly Shaker tenets from supplanting the laws we’ve stumbled upon more collectively.
The most substantial barrier that needs to be overcome if Muslims want to be more readily welcomed into other nations is that, where they have been a majority, that country’s approach to law and culture is antithetical to the ideals of the democratic nation to which they hope to emigrate.
The western world is reluctant to accept blindly that Muslims who want to immigrate here reject whatever it is about Islam which so consistently creates the environment of Islam-majority nations. Indeed; such a litmus test would be hard to define because it would be perilously close to a request for rejection of Islam itself as a governing ideology for the Muslim. The refugee fleeing “Communist Russia” can be readily welcomed because he is rejecting the foundational “communist” paradigm from which he is fleeing. Not so for a Muslim, who is not rejecting Islam.
There is no confidence by westerners that Muslim candidates for immigration wholeheartedly reject whatever it is about Islam that has resulted in so consistent a pattern of broad governance and culture where the majority of the populace are Muslims.
Islamophobia results from a perception that the pattern in Islam-majority countries is a direct consequence of Islam itself, since that pattern is so universal within Islam-majority nations.
Someone will probably have a more comprehensive cite, but this poll shows American Muslims to align pretty will with American of other faiths. So it looks like Americans, if they think like you say they do, ignore an important data set that should inform their opinions.
[ol]
[li]What people think when they’re a small minority of a country and concerned about avoiding persecution is not a strong indicator of what they might think if they were the majority or close to it, and felt more comfortable about asserting themselves.[/li][li]Things change, and some things are more prone to change than others. Turkey was a pretty secular country not so long ago. Not anymore.[/li][/ol]
Is it your contention that the Muslims being polled had some fear or retribution from the pollsters if they gave the “wrong” answers? Unlikely. “Things change” is an argument that can be used against anything, and so is meaningless in singling out one thing in particular.
How does Indonesia fit in with the OP’s thesis? … Indonesia has problems to be sure, however it really doesn’t fit into the stereotype the OP is presenting … perhaps we should confine ourselves to Arab countries …
Arabophobia results from a perception that the pattern in Arab-majority countries is a direct consequence of being Arab itself, since that pattern is so universal within Arab-majority nations.
I’ve heard it argued that Arabs-under-Islam are a bunch of pussycats compared to Arabs-before-Islam … just for some reason Arabs are fond of slaughtering each other off …
People’s ideological positions are not formed in a vacuum. In a place where a given people are newcomers and cautious and nervous about acceptance, it’s more likely that an ideology which emphasizes tolerance for others will take hold in this group. It’s less likely that a confident and confrontational ideology will take hold, as compared to a situation where the same people are comfortable in their position and feel more entitled to dominance.
Of course. But it’s not like we’re speculating about some random change. The OP is noting a strong pattern that is currently in place among Muslim-majority countries. That suggests that - at this point in history - there’s more reason to think that things might change in that same direction than some other random change. I’ve given Turkey as one example of such, but there are others as well.
It is equally true that what people claim when they live under an authoritarian regime that punishes them for dissent against the prevailing political or religious doctrine is not a strong indicator of what they might think if they were living in a society where they felt more comfortable about expressing their more moderate views.
That’s a fair point too, and you could be right. But the burden in on the other foot. The question is not whether you can conclusively prove that a Muslim majority would be dangerous for others. The question is whether there’s reason to be concerned about it.
John Mace is apparently claiming that the survey he cited is proof that there’s no reason to be concerned. This is not valid.
I don’t know if it’s proof, but we can also look at things like the crime rate, joblessness, education, and similar statistics, and IIRC, Muslim Americans are very well represented in all these sorts of categories. That, at least, strikes me as evidence that Muslims in America are likely to be very good additions, rather than a threat, in general.
What conclusion did he make? As I read the OP, all he was saying was that it’s reasonable to be fearful. Relevant quotes:
“Suspicion against Muslim immigrants […] The western world is reluctant to accept blindly that Muslims […] There is no confidence by westerners that Muslim […].”
There’s nothing about being suspicious, not accepting blindly, or not having confidence etc. which implies that anyone is missing the survey you cite or any similar data.
For the most part, in western society there exists an assumption of innocence rather than of guilt. Concern is warranted but the risk is managed through the immigration vetting process.
“Assumption of innocence” is appropriate for the judicial process but not when we’re discussing people’s concerns and public policy.
The vetting process is overrated, in the context of the concerns being discussed here. That process is about terrorism, which is not what we’re discussing (and even at that I’m not all that confident, but the point is moot here).
Exactly. So my point was justified.
The part you quoted was a statement that “There is no confidence by westerners that Muslim candidates for immigration wholeheartedly reject whatever it is about Islam that has resulted in so consistent a pattern of broad governance and culture where the majority of the populace are Muslims.” (emphasis added.)
It follows then, that your response implied that people who were not ignoring the poll that you cited should have confidence that Muslim candidates etc. My response was that this poll was not conclusive as to what these people’s attitudes were likely to be in a culture in which the majority was Muslim.
No. I was simply saying that if people base their opinions ONLY on what the see happening in majority Muslim countries, they are missing out on an important piece of data. The OP acts as if such data is not available.
ISTM that you have it backwards, at least as regards to anything being discussed in this thread. But in any event, the answer is “both” (or “all”).
Not so. If people feel that what they see happening in majority Muslim countries is sufficient cause for concern regardless of whatever polls, then there’s no reason to assume they’re missing out on anything.