What the **** is Boris thinking?

[Burney]

With the exception of Orthodox Jews.

According to the religion.... Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men while Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women, providing those women convert to Islam. It is assimilation at its clearest.

Yes, but Orthodox Jews are a minority of a minority rather than an ethnicity per se. As an ethnicity, Jews marry out far, far more than muslims. Or, as in Monty's case, they simply impregnate decent Christian women with their foul Hebrew seed and then refuse to marry them.

But more seriously, it is assimilation, but crucially, it's not assimilation of the minority by the majority. And, whichever way you look at it, it sure as hell ain't integration.

[Burney]

No, I don't agree about multi-culturalism. You can celebrate many cultures while at the same defining mutually consistent beliefs and values that unite you. Canada is the poster child for this.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the UK practice a form of Islam which is not at odds with a secular, democratic society. Religion is like that, mostly, the extremists of any particular form of religion are always in the small minority.

By all means we should discuss the issues within our Muslim communities including how best to continue and accelerate the integration. But let's not try and demonise the entire community the way Burney has. That way madness lies.

This represents a fundamental (no pun intended) failure to understand the difference between Islam and Christianity. There is no 'moderate' Islam. There's only Islam. In our post-enlightenment society, Christianity has had to adapt to the increasing secularity of society by toning down the whole 'religion' thing so as not to frighten us all off. Islam has gone through no such process of adaptation.

A quick look at Islam should tell you that its tenets are at odds with post-enlightenment western society - indeed, the fact that we're having this conversation is proof of the fact. If you look at our society, it is we who are adapting to accommodate Islam, not the other way around. Islam is staying exactly the same while we tacitly assimilate Sharia courts into our legal systems; accept things like the Burqa, accept the innate sexism and homophobia of Islam; accept first cousin marriage and its deleterious effects on the children; turn a blind eye to forced marriage and FGM and generally spend huge amounts of time worrying about whether muslims will be offended by our norms while never stopping to ask whether we ought to be offended by theirs.

If you think this is integration, you're out of your mind. We're abandoning fundamental principles of our way of life while they are doing precisely fvck all to meet us half way.

[WES]

This represents a fundamental (no pun intended) failure to understand the difference between Islam and Christianity. There is no 'moderate' Islam. There's only Islam. In our post-enlightenment society, Christianity has had to adapt to the increasing secularity of society by toning down the whole 'religion' thing so as not to frighten us all off. Islam has gone through no such process of adaptation.

A quick look at Islam should tell you that its tenets are at odds with post-enlightenment western society - indeed, the fact that we're having this conversation is proof of the fact. If you look at our society, it is we who are adapting to accommodate Islam, not the other way around. Islam is staying exactly the same while we tacitly assimilate Sharia courts into our legal systems; accept things like the Burqa, accept the innate sexism and homophobia of Islam; accept first cousin marriage and its deleterious effects on the children; turn a blind eye to forced marriage and FGM and generally spend huge amounts of time worrying about whether muslims will be offended by our norms while never stopping to ask whether we ought to be offended by theirs.

If you think this is integration, you're out of your mind. We're abandoning fundamental principles of our way of life while they are doing precisely fvck all to meet us half way.

And there was me thinking that there was a difference between the democratic republic of Indonesia where 87% of the population is Muslim and Saudi Arabia whose Salafism disallows democracy entirely.

You better tell the Indonesians that there is only one Islam. That or the Saudis because it seems one of them is wrong.

[Burney]

And there was me thinking that there was a difference between the democratic republic of Indonesia where 87% of the population is Muslim and Saudi Arabia whose Salafism disallows democracy entirely.

You better tell the Indonesians that there is only one Islam. That or the Saudis because it seems one of them is wrong.

If you're arguing that there are more or less draconian Islamic states, you are of course correct. However, that is a question of how much the religion is allowed to dominate in the society, not a question of the religion and its doctrines. The fundamentals of the religion and the Sharia remain as inimical to western values as ever.

Also, because of the Dutch colonial influence, Indonesia retains some western forms of law and government. However, those are increasingly being replaced by Sharia as the influence of Islam grows and secularism retreats. In other words, Islam (as opposed to the structures put there by the west) is coming to dominate, which will mean an inevitable reduction in the rights of women and an increasingly theocratic state. Because that's how Islam works - it does not integrate, it dominates, conquers and assimilates.