Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Tolerance is relative. Historically most Muslim nations have been as tolerant as anyone, but the Cold War and other power influences have certainly shaped the situation today. To describe Muslim nations "in general" for anything would be a great disservice.
|
The historical equality of Muslim nations compared to anyone else depends on how far back such relative equality existed, where, and how long it lasted. In Spain from the eighth to the 12th century, such relative equality of tolerance existed, though by todays standards it would be considered not only intolerant but oppressive. And, in Spain, even though the Muslims had conquered and ruled it, they were outnumbered by Christians, which made it more difficult to be as harsh as in those areas where they were the majority. And the tolerance deteriorated for various reasons including wars with Europeans, the demise of more "enlightened" rulers replaced by more austere Islamic ones, and external forces from Islamic fundamentalists.
But, though cases of relative Muslim tolerance had existed in certain places in the past, after the end of "Al-Andalus," the so called golden age of Islamic rule in Spain, Muslim tolerance, by and large, steadily degraded to its relatively intolerant character of today. The "relative" tolerance of long ago ceased to exist. Not so much because Muslim rule is not really, with some exceptions, more intolerant today than in the past, it's just that compared to most other nations, it is no longer relatively equal in tolerance. Quite the opposite.
Remember this from a previous post: "there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries."
The amount of tolerance embraced by Muslims toward non-Muslims is, for the most part, dependent on the governing power they possess. As I pointed out to you in an older thread, even an influential Canadian Muslim (forget his name) who insists that Islam is a religion of peace, and that it is wrong to characterize Islam as intolerant . . . even he admitted that when Muslims become the majority population things (like tolerance and equality) go wrong.
In a like manner, population demographics is one of the engines of cultural change. Mass immigration, especially of a group which holds strong fundamental beliefs alien to the ethos of the host country, and whose relative birthrate is much higher than the host, invokes the mostly unspoken fear of conflict and fundamental cultural change. Such migrations have historically proved that fear to be valid. Western Europe is visibly showing the beginnings of the conflict and cultural change induced not merely by the Muslim immigrants, but by the increasing numbers of "home grown" Muslims. And the demographics of countries with the largest Muslim populations are on a course of becoming Islamic nations within a couple of generations.
We are told by those who want to allow, for instance, large numbers of refugees--in this case mostly Muslims--that we have this really good vetting process and the chance of importing terrorists is very small. And that home grown terrorists are more likely than refugee terrorists. That may be true. Or not as true as some past statistics seem to demonstrate. But it totally focuses on the refugees--not on the generations produced by those refugees and the culture and belief system by which they raise those generations--the future "home grown" Muslims.
Refugees who have gone through the vetting process may well have no terrorist intentions, and may truly be grateful to be rescued from horrific conditions. But their children, being raised as Americans, won't have the need to be grateful, and, like most children, many may have a conflicting emotional allegiance between the culture which their parents instilled in them and the prevailing American culture. A pride in their origins can, at least in some, probably in many, instill a bitterness against this country for what they perceive as its unjust wars against those like themselves. And they can, as are at least some, be radicalized into "home grown" terrorists. But worse than that to me would be the change, by demographic "shift," of the philosophical and governing foundation of this country into one diametrically opposed to it.
I have witnessed Mexican immigrants, documented or undocumented, come here and be very productive, more so than a large portion of "home grown" Americans. They are grateful for and happy about the opportunity to live a good life--by the sweat of their own brow. But I have seen many of their children born and raised here, feel they have no occasion to be grateful, but, rather, to be bitter about what they perceive as, or are told exists, discrimination against their "people." Some, through an educational system that is often subsidized, become lawyers, activists, judges who advocate against "the system" and seek "social justice," and militate for amnesty for millions of illegals and for the entry of more millions. They have already impacted American culture and will do even more so. They may well be the dominant "race" (la Raza) in a couple of generations.
That may be a good thing. I have no opinion about that. I really like my Mexican neighbors. I like a lot about the Latino culture. And I have met many really nice Muslims. And I like their food . . . and some of their culture. But that is neither here nor there.
What I most deeply wish is that immigrants of all stripes would cherish the freedom which, supposedly, they came here for. And I want them to understand and appreciate the American foundational governing structure under which freedom is most likely to flourish. And to defend and protect it.
For the Latinos I have great hope.