Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Philangeli

Why do muslims emigrate to Christian lands

111 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

back to earth
2 hours ago, Philangeli said:

Is it just to make a living?

If so, why doesn't Islam/Allah provide its followers to make a living in their own countries?

 

Sometimes .   Some of my family went to a 'Muslim country' to make a living '  for a while .  They paid them very well.  

But sometimes they come here for the freedom the west can offer, or is supposed tom offer for ' freedom of religious expression' .   As you  may know, some are immigrants and some refugees as well.

The reason Allah doesn't look after them at home, as you appear to imagine he should, is the same reason Jesus  doesn't look after all the poor Christians in Christian Countries .... one assumes  ;) 

 

Image result for american poverty

 

Oh dear !  Another Christian in a Christian county, not being looked after by Jesus  .... tut tut !  What is one to think ? !

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

how many of these came to the UK for "a better life"? how many were born here? 

Free ... you gotta feel the push and shove when its in the mix, if you wanna break up a fight you gotta hold both of them apart, not just hold one down while the other keeps pummeling and bashing the other, regardless ... they were promise d 'freedom' which includes the freedom to live and think, taking the extreme cases as confirmation just renders the bias less conspicuous under the shroud of denouement ...   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Do you guys have other pockets where cultures havent fully integrated? Like Chinatowns? (forgive my ignorance) 

 

We have an area called Chinatown in London. I took my husband there when we first met and he came to London. I love it there, ok, we also got Soho, but that can be quite "educational". Chinatown is small, but the people are great and the food is superb. There is no hostility, it is a great area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, freetoroam said:

We have an area called Chinatown in London. I took my husband there when we first met and he came to London. I love it there, ok, we also got Soho, but that can be quite "educational". Chinatown is small, but the people are great and the food is superb. There is no hostility, it is a great area. 

Oh Ok, thanks for answering, I guess its not really relevant to the overall conversation I was just trying to learn something! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.United_Nations

Quite a few triads in Chinatown too

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE
1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Everyone has a chance, but when a particular religion is causing a threat, then one has to question those following that religion, jeeze, history is our witness on that one. I am not religious, and if i had been around during the times of persecutions, i would have been killed by the catholics, christians and muslims. I find it extremely worrying and sad that religion is STILL behind the reason why we are seeing deaths today. As it happens, those doing the recent attacks are doing it in the name of islam, and the western world is not a muslim world.

The point is, who can we trust when we are seeing more and more attacks in Europe? how can we trust the "the good muslim" who has immigrated to our country when a lot of the terrorists are immigrants from a muslim country coming to the western world with "to better their life" as their reason

How many times have were heard "but they were so nice, friendly" by neighbours and friends of the terrorist who had just murdered innocent people . too many now, to the point where unfortunately, some of us feel we can  not trust the "to better my life" immigrant. It is sad, not only for the muslim who genuinely wants to better their lives or even to come here to study, but too many innocent lives are being taken in our western world, innocent people who have nothing to do with what is going on in other countries where there is war......why are they attacking innocent people here? what do you expect people to do? accept that these people are angry and we continue go about our business with the possibility of being killed by a suicide bomber or run over by a van, by muslim fanatics who have entered our country because " they want to better their lives"? 

So what is your solution? How do we solve the problem? I mean, the Muslim terrorism (Edit: In Europe) is a very recent thing. We've had Muslims in our nations for a long, long time. Several generations. And now we simply put all those people under a general suspicion? Or do we ban Islam?

Muslim terrorists kill one group of people the most: Other Muslims. So the best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to bond with ethical Muslims, and guide them to find a way to get rid of this tumor that is within their own. This is not easy, of course, and takes a lot of effort from both sides, but it seems to make a lot more sense than to simply demonize a whole bunch of people we have never spoken to, and who want most likely to live in peace and harmony like most people all over the world. 

Edited by FLOMBIE
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 hours ago, freetoroam said:

why would a muslim country not let in a fellow muslim  when in need and yet the western world take them in?

I've asked this very question....don't have an answer though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
13 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I've asked this very question....don't have an answer though.

Been answered many times, just the answers were not to your liking.

What I hear with that question is 'why won't the Muslim Countries clean up the crap the Western Govrnments leave behind ?'

If you want to break it down like that I guess the first point of reference will be the wealthy immigrants/refugees, if you have a couple of 100Ks where would you choose ?

Then comes the not so well off ... if there are choices and opportunities, where would you choose ?

Then we comes to the ones no one wants to acknowledge and pretends doesn't exists ... the poor and destitute, which ironically are the ones that have lost the most and sacrificed the most and is need of the most aid.

Where are they supposed to go ?

Probably where there is an distant relative, an aunt, uncle, cousin ... or maybe just a relative of a friend of a friend ...

Because that's where they were promised refuge until the time comes for them to return home.

Why do they keep their customs and culture ?

Because there is nothing they want more than to go home ... their beloved homeland.

Except that time never came, from great grand parents to the present hour ... their home is still under constant threat of modern weapons of great destruction, the promises of PEACE were not honored ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
7 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Been answered many times, just the answers were not to your liking.

What I hear with that question is 'why won't the Muslim Countries clean up the crap the Western Govrnments leave behind ?

Not at all what I'm asking. What I wonder is why countries like Saudi Arabia and other predominately Muslim nations (who have the same religious and cultural values) aren't taking in many refugees? It's not that these nations can't afford it as many are very, very wealthy. I mean countries like Sweden have taken in refugees and Sweden hasn't been involved in any of the fighting in Iraq and Syria. See what I mean.

BTW, I wish ISIS would just up and disappear and these people could go home...I really wish that was possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Not at all what I'm asking. What I wonder is why countries like Saudi Arabia and other predominately Muslim nations (who have the same religious and cultural values) aren't taking in many refugees? It's not that these nations can't afford it as many are very, very wealthy. I mean countries like Sweden have taken in refugees and Sweden hasn't been involved in any of the fighting in Iraq and Syria. See what I mean.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, they will have to be subjects of the King, not something the King or the refugee wants if it comes to a choice of 'is there anything else' on the table.

Then there is that Sunni/Shiite divide. Also that blame game of who is to bear the burden of everybody's woes ... its not like the refugees are demanding Beverly Hills or The Hamptons, and all in all what I do know is most of the refugees wants temporary shelter, till times get better, those that wants to leave and 'integrate' to the Western way of life would have left on their own accord long ago, war or no wars.

~

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

BTW, I wish ISIS would just up and disappear and these people could go home...I really wish that was possible.

You me both and 99.9% of the world ...

~

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, freetoroam said:

? Christian land? do you not mean to the western world? I live in England, and I do not see this as a Christian country.

But I do question why muslims come to a developed western world when they have no intentions of integrating and expect us to "embrace" them. 

 

England is constitutionally christian.  Church of england  specifically, but in general the question is why do muslims migrate from predominately muslim countries to predominately christian countries  The reasons are varied and complex and common to all push pull demographic factors causing migration.

MAny are pushed from their lands by violence or intimidation or famine. Some seek greater freedoms. Some desire a better life for their children  including more freedom and more secure  financial prospects  There might even be a tiny minority who infiltrate with the express desire to overthrow the state and install a muslim one  (which i think might be the underlying question in the OP)

The reason the y do not always integrate  well is because, for many, religion is not just a minor part of their life but actually the largest part of their life on which all values and behaviours are dependent  This makes it hard to integrate in western countries which in practice are almost secular  The relationship between man and woman for a muslim is not just a cultural one which can be shrugged of in anew county but one instituted by god and for them, thus, not changeable.

 There are also practical problems such as the lack of language  of the new country  This tends to limit economic prospects, thus delaying success in the new country, which breeds despair and anger   It also drives immigrants into enclaves or ghettos of a common language,  which,slows down integration. However IF children are taught facility in the nation's language, experience shows that second and third generation migrant's children usually integrate effectively, and many become high achievers and successes contributing a lot to their new home  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, freetoroam said:

why would a muslim country not let in a fellow muslim  when in need and yet the western world take them in?

Actually most muslim refugees ARE in muslim countries;  hundreds of thousands of them. However  there are differences in religion between muslims which cause problems  But also there is a limit to how much even a rich country can accommodate  not just financially but culturally   There are larger cultural differences between muslim countries just as there are between christian ones  especially in the treatment of women.    

Personally i am philosophically opposed to the total free movement of people around the world I don't think i should just be able to move to another country permanently  unless that country needs my skills.   I know some people see everyone as a citizen of the world but practically we are stil nation states and a nation states prime responsibility is to ts own citizens, not those from other  nation states   I would stop all migration except for three categories, family reunion,   needs of the country eg  for workers or young people for example, and a  limited compassionate refugee intake which could be managed  for both refugees and the nation's best . That Intake could be quite large if it was organised prioritised and funded effectively, but it would be controlled and managed by the state and not just by how many people came knocking on your door.    SOme european states have been  insane in the number of refugees they have allowed in, and risk actually permanently damaging the cohesion and safety of those states and their people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
57 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Been answered many times, just the answers were not to your liking.

What I hear with that question is 'why won't the Muslim Countries clean up the crap the Western Govrnments leave behind ?'

If you want to break it down like that I guess the first point of reference will be the wealthy immigrants/refugees, if you have a couple of 100Ks where would you choose ?

Then comes the not so well off ... if there are choices and opportunities, where would you choose ?

Then we comes to the ones no one wants to acknowledge and pretends doesn't exists ... the poor and destitute, which ironically are the ones that have lost the most and sacrificed the most and is need of the most aid.

Where are they supposed to go ?

Probably where there is an distant relative, an aunt, uncle, cousin ... or maybe just a relative of a friend of a friend ...

Because that's where they were promised refuge until the time comes for them to return home.

Why do they keep their customs and culture ?

Because there is nothing they want more than to go home ... their beloved homeland.

Except that time never came, from great grand parents to the present hour ... their home is still under constant threat of modern weapons of great destruction, the promises of PEACE were not honored ...

~

Another problem, or limiting factor, is the UN policy on refugees, and what constitutes a refugee.

A refugee is only such,and only has  refugee status rights, including the right of asylum, in the FIRST country they enter which is safe for them  

So if you cross into a safe arab state you are no longer technically a refugee who has the right to be moved or move to another state. No other state has an obligation to let you in (but the first state you enter does, under UN law)

 A person seeking a better economic life is not a refugee (entitled to asylum)  although one seeking more freedom might be, if their lack of freedom has endangered or oppressed them, and discriminated against them. . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Not at all what I'm asking. What I wonder is why countries like Saudi Arabia and other predominately Muslim nations (who have the same religious and cultural values) aren't taking in many refugees? It's not that these nations can't afford it as many are very, very wealthy. I mean countries like Sweden have taken in refugees and Sweden hasn't been involved in any of the fighting in Iraq and Syria. See what I mean.

BTW, I wish ISIS would just up and disappear and these people could go home...I really wish that was possible.

The bbc and huffington post both report 500 000 syrian refugees in saudi arabia and saudi authorities estimate a total of 2.5 million syrians iving in saudi arabia   There are significant ethnic and religious differences between the saudis and some other arab states which complicates things.

2015-09-22-1442924304-2703102-COCZJqlWsAAWT7h.png

This is the sort of data used by western media to perpetuate the myth that saudi arabia does not take in refugees

The data source of all of these publications seems to be the UN High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR) itself, which notes that over 4,000,000 refugees have been registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. None of these refugees are registered in any of the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia.

However, a look at Saudi Arabia’s UNHCR page has a few curious footnotes that Western publications are conveniently omitting. The UNHCR counts refugees by noting only those “persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection.“ Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees, and so through this technicality, they, along with most of their refugees, are excluded from many refugee counting mechanisms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

The myth of the rich Muslim countries that have taken zero Syrian refugees is often paired with the idea that, although the Gulf state donated some money, the amount is small compared to the aid money handed over by western countries.

This is also a false claim. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are in the Top 10 countries giving aid to Syrian refugees. The four Gulf states have already given more than $2.3 billion – more than Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, France and Italy combined.

The Gulf countries have donated to support the U.N. refugee agency’s efforts in countries neighbouring Syria. The UAE has funded refugee camps in Jordan and Iraq giving shelter to tens of thousands of Syrians, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar have donated funds, food, shelter and clothing to Syrians in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.

The United Arab Emirates has provided more than 1.98 billion dirham ($540 million) in humanitarian aid and development assistance since 2012 in response to the Syrian crisis. UAE had established a refugee camp in Jordan and one in northern Iraq, according to UAE government officials. The UAE-funded camp in Jordan, known as Mrajeeb Al Fhood, houses more than 4,000 refugees. UAE government believes that it is in the best long-term interest of the refugees to be close to their homes so it will be easier for them to return when the conflict ends.

In September 2015, the Saudi Press Agency announced that Saudi Arabia has provided around $700 million to aid agencies in Syria and has set up clinics at refugee camps.

http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Seems like this isn't really a spiritual discussion. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 hours ago, Lilly said:

Not at all what I'm asking. What I wonder is why countries like Saudi Arabia and other predominately Muslim nations (who have the same religious and cultural values) aren't taking in many refugees? It's not that these nations can't afford it as many are very, very wealthy. I mean countries like Sweden have taken in refugees and Sweden hasn't been involved in any of the fighting in Iraq and Syria. See what I mean.

BTW, I wish ISIS would just up and disappear and these people could go home...I really wish that was possible.

Historically, countries of ethnic and cultural homogeneity rarely offer themselves up to mass migrations of alien refugees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg

The middle eastern people  were and still are traders /merchants at heart , they measure everything in terms of profit and loss and they know these immigrants are nothing but loss , and a influx of migrants might destabilize their countries which recently have gone through revolutionary phase . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Historically, countries of ethnic and cultural homogeneity rarely offer themselves up to mass migrations of alien refugees.

Exactly, and sadly I suspect kartikg may have hit on the answer here. I also suspect that the wealthy predominately Muslim nations fear that ISIS has indeed infiltrated the refugee population...and they don't want to take the risk involved in bringing in large numbers of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The bbc and huffington post both report 500 000 syrian refugees in saudi arabia and saudi authorities estimate a total of 2.5 million syrians iving in saudi arabia   There are significant ethnic and religious differences between the saudis and some other arab states which complicates things.

2015-09-22-1442924304-2703102-COCZJqlWsAAWT7h.png

This is the sort of data used by western media to perpetuate the myth that saudi arabia does not take in refugees

The data source of all of these publications seems to be the UN High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR) itself, which notes that over 4,000,000 refugees have been registered by the UNHCR in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. None of these refugees are registered in any of the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia.

However, a look at Saudi Arabia’s UNHCR page has a few curious footnotes that Western publications are conveniently omitting. The UNHCR counts refugees by noting only those “persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection.“ Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees, and so through this technicality, they, along with most of their refugees, are excluded from many refugee counting mechanisms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html

 

The myth of the rich Muslim countries that have taken zero Syrian refugees is often paired with the idea that, although the Gulf state donated some money, the amount is small compared to the aid money handed over by western countries.

This is also a false claim. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are in the Top 10 countries giving aid to Syrian refugees. The four Gulf states have already given more than $2.3 billion – more than Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, France and Italy combined.

The Gulf countries have donated to support the U.N. refugee agency’s efforts in countries neighbouring Syria. The UAE has funded refugee camps in Jordan and Iraq giving shelter to tens of thousands of Syrians, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar have donated funds, food, shelter and clothing to Syrians in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.

The United Arab Emirates has provided more than 1.98 billion dirham ($540 million) in humanitarian aid and development assistance since 2012 in response to the Syrian crisis. UAE had established a refugee camp in Jordan and one in northern Iraq, according to UAE government officials. The UAE-funded camp in Jordan, known as Mrajeeb Al Fhood, houses more than 4,000 refugees. UAE government believes that it is in the best long-term interest of the refugees to be close to their homes so it will be easier for them to return when the conflict ends.

In September 2015, the Saudi Press Agency announced that Saudi Arabia has provided around $700 million to aid agencies in Syria and has set up clinics at refugee camps.

http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/

Well damn thats a good piece of mythbusting! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

Why don't the governments of the countries so many refugees and migrants flee from, take care of their own people so that they don't feel the need to leave? And if the governments won't take care of the people, why don't the people themselves rise up and overthrow them ..... set up their society so that it's more like the West, if that's what they want?

Just off the top of my head: I wonder if, once the refugees/migrants arrive in the West, they feel(irrationally?), guilty of leaving the 'mother country/fatherland' and that is partially why they cling to their religion. They feel guilt at desiring the Western way of life and so resent us. 

And, speaking as a Brit, I have to say this too: is this Karma provoked by our Colonial past?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
9 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Seems like this isn't really a spiritual discussion. 

This should be in the politics section. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

This should be in the politics section. 

Again...not sure why I see a mod on here, and it hasn't been moved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 hours ago, Lilly said:

Exactly, and sadly I suspect kartikg may have hit on the answer here. I also suspect that the wealthy predominately Muslim nations fear that ISIS has indeed infiltrated the refugee population...and they don't want to take the risk involved in bringing in large numbers of them.

It wouldn't matter if Daesh never existed. The tribal rivalries and antipathies and myopic xenophobia's of the nineteenth century persist even in the twenty-first century in the Middle-East. It's the reason Nasser's United Arab Republic was never anything more than a chimera. They'll never unite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienzTruth

It's sad to see how many there are who are afraid of other cultures. Embrace it, learn from them and live together. Geez!
I know many muslims who have celebrated christmas and even birthdays.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.