9 thoughts on “Koran=Mein Kampf?

  1. Its scary that this type of thinking is coming out of Norway. The Scandanavian countries are known to be very open, tolerant, and socially progressive. Unfortunately, this type of thinking will soon be the norm. O’Reilly also compared the Koran to Mein Kampf on his programme. Do you sense that this is because Muslim immigrants tend not to assimilate in their host culture? Take the UK as an example and look at the integration of Indian immigrants as opposed to Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants. Indian immigrants see themselves as British, the Pakistani community to a great extent, does not. Indian food, movies, dress, music, and culture is now part of British culture, while Pakistani culture is still viewed with suspicion. What are the factors that give rise to assimilation?

  2. Bush and his regime are way closer to Mein Kamp with it’s Patriot Act much like Hitlers own Acts. The Quran and Islam is nowhere close to it. Sad that they could even think this way. That’s my two cents anyhow.

  3. Have these Christians read their own Bible? I like Revelation 19. And the Hebrew Bible? How about Deuteronomy 7? 1 Sam. 15? I could go on and on.
    All of our sacred texts have morally questionable components. What matters is what we do with them.
    But I wish that Sister Solijah had not responded by comparing Bush to Hitler and the Patriot Act to Mein Kampf. This sort of rhetoric is not productive.
    (Btw, Islamoyankee, you might want to correct the spelling of Mein Kampf in your heading.)

  4. I stated that only because Hitlers acts not so unlike Bush’s were created with racism. Bush’s patriot act violates Muslims rights and many feel a concentration camp like event could easily take place. It’s downright scary.
    Here’s one site about Hitler’s Enabling Act”
    * I wasn’t trying to be counterproductive, but was trying to state how if they are so concerned about Nazi like activity they have better places to look than the Muslims that reside in Norway.

  5. Elf, thanks for catch. Typo should be corrected.
    I actually posted this because I thought it was so absurd. I think Ghost Dog hits on a key point though, on integration. To me the really troubling part of this article is that open societies are becoming progressively more closed. Part of it is fear in a post-9/11 world, and part of it is xenophobia. Pym Fortyn was an Islamophobe because to him Muslims represented the great unwashed masses.
    I think the situation you describe in England is a bit simplistic Ghost Dog. There a more Pakistani legislators than Indian ones, proportionately, in various levels of the UK political system. I think the ethnic enclaves are more visible with the Pakistanis because they are better established. There tons of Gujarati neighborhoods outside of London, but that aren’t as visible.
    I do agree that integration, or the appearance of it, is key to acceptance in a host society. However, those perceptions can change quickly in an economic downturn. All over Europe the idea of the welfare state is under attack, and more often than not its blamed on immigrants depleting the stores. On my flight down to Australia I saw the movie “Dirty, Pretty Things” which is a shocking look at the parallel economy immigrants use because they don’t have access to the economic systems of the host society. While I won’t deny there are people who abuse the system, it ignores the fact that many new immigrants are not even part of the system.
    The immigrant question is a tangled one, as witnessed by the slooooooow pace of my dissertation. But to attack one component of it, and a very narrow one, how do Muslim immigrants integrate? Does it even make sense to talk of a group of immigrants in terms of religious identity? I think to me that last question is the most difficult. Too often race and religion are conflated; the situation the article we are discussing is part of that condition.
    Muslim immigrants makes sense from a political view, but not a policy view. However, it does act as a convenient non-racist codeword, much like “welfare queens” did in the US in the 80s, while masking deeper inequalities and issues.

  6. Only God knows who did what. What I do know is that there are a lot of fishy things surrounding the entire event. And what has happened since is complete excusatory…Patriot Act, Racism, Religionism, etc.

  7. Islamoyankee, I have to disagree with you regarding the Indian and Pakistani communities in England. Integration is something to observe and to feel, not to study in a book or survey. Political representation is a big deal, but integration of a society is larger than a few individuals in the legislature, it is about having the products of one’s society [linguistic, culinary, music, art, ect.] accepted and absorbed into the predominant culture, to the point where the lines are blurred. This is the case with the Indian community. Many in the Indian community are contributing to English society in every field including the media and television. They are British. I cannot say the same for the Pakistani community. Once a minority group is secure to make fun of itself on a national stage, they have arrived. Again, this is indeed the case for the Indian community. Not simplistic, just simple.

  8. Ghostdog, I suppose the larger point I was trying to make was how do you distinguish between Indian and Pakistani culture? Punjab is split between the two countries; Gujarat and Sindh are neighbors. Most common cultural markers are shared across the north. There are Pakistani and Bangladeshi enclaves in and near London, but there Gujarati enclaves just outside London. I think the acceptance of Bombay Dreams, Punjabi MC, Apache Indian, Chicken Tikka, mehendi, etc., cannot be called the integration of Indians only. There is a rhetoric amongst the Pakistanis in their enclaves that they are different, and clearly the BNP is invested in perpetuating that rhetoric, but what of their culture is being rejected?

Comments are closed.