Replies

Interesting points all.

On the matter of active non-assimilation of Muslims into communities in which they reside.

I think the practice is historical. Following the initial break out of Islam from its cradle in the Arabian peninsula into the then civilised world, and the spread of the faith by conquest, the conduct of the conquerers is quite interesting.

Most armies of conquest and occupation in history will settle in the conquered countries, take land, property and local women, and are assimilated into the population. The thrust of the conquest often dies out.

Islam did not do this but ensured that the occupiers formed their own Islamic enclaves within a conquered country, where Islamic conduct and culture were carefully preserved. They usually left existing administrative structures in place and just assumed oversight of them, using them to rule through and collect taxes via. (The Dhimmi tax or jizya)

Local merchants and those seeking advancement in the conquered countries had to make approaches to the Muslims for sanction and favours. They found that support of, or conversion to, Islam facilitated this process.

The conduct of Muslims in the 'Dar al-Harb' remains the same to this day.

The ploy is supported by their religious writings - for instance the well known exhortation not to take Jews and Christian as friends is just the most obvious, further study will turn up many more. This was intended to keep the Muslim faith 'pure'.

So friends, do not expect Muslims to become part of our democratic society any time soon. It would not be an overstatement to say such a course is, in fact, prohibited both by their history and their creed.

On the other hand, one could see the present process of Islamic immigration to the West as an unannounced, but active, continuation of the process, to first regain the Caliphate, and then to convert the whole World to become the 'Dar al-Islam' under the yoke of Islam. Heads up.