Integration, not assimilation

I'm ready to integrate. But are you ready to accept me?

The question of integration has been thrown around very irresponsibly by many people, especially the politicians. The onus has been squarely placed on the Muslim community and the assumption is that if the Muslim community integrates Britain would be a spectacularly cohesive and multicultural country. This is far from the truth. Today’s Britain has many social problems that can not be traced back or solved simply through integration.

Islam does not see any problem in integration. In fact, it strongly encourages Muslims to take full part in society and its institutions. At least this is what the faith says. In reality it may not be the case. While I am not justifying the lack of integration of Muslims, I am extremely alarmed by the lack of honest and serious debate around the topic.

Firstly, integration needs a comprehensive definition. It needs all stakeholders to agree on a set of common values. In my view, integration could be defined as "the bringing of people of different racial, ethnic or religious groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society and its institutions". Integration could also mean a process of desegregation, ie. dismantling of ghettos and removing barriers. Integration is the total opposite to disengagement.

Secondly, when I explain that Islam encourages integration, I ask you not to confuse it with assimilation. Islam would be opposed to any notion of assimilation. Integration is not about socially engineering a new generation based on no distinct faith, ethnic or cultural identity. This is precisely what assimilation would do. Islam proposes people to become loyal to their faith but their cultural or ethnic differences a reason for greater interaction and celebration.

Thirdly, integration it is not a one-way street. Minority communities do not have a moral obligation to integrate into the majority community. Such a suggestion assumes the majority communities’ values, lifestyle, cultures and customs are superior. This is simply an arrogant supposition. Integration must have an element of give and take and willingness to share.

Integration is not the end but simply a process where people of all background come together to make connections and develop shared values mutually. The outcome is a cohesive and integrated society. Integration is like a watch. A watch has small components inside; each component by itself can not be called a watch, although they may function individually. However when all the components are arranged in an orderly fashion the watch works perfectly.

All cultures, faiths, traditions and customs together would form an integrated society. If we take the example of the watch, every component is vital; similarly every stakeholder in such an integrated society would be a crucial partner. It must be a relationship based on proportionality and most certainly on equal worth and respect.

There are many challenges we need to overcome. When we are developing common values the biggest and most pressing question is how to resolve the problems of cultural norms and values that are at polar ends.

There are several examples I can mention that would make developing shared values very difficult. Such as, for one, the fact that British society’s social life is based around drinking alcohol while it is totally forbidden for a Muslim to drink, buy, sell, carry or sit around the same table where alcohol is being consumed. This means Muslims are not able to socialise with the non-Muslim communities fully where drinking alcohol is so prevalent. Would that prevent us from developing common values?

Let us take another example. The interaction between men and women in Islam is substantially different. While in this country physical contact between the sexes is normal in Islam there are restrictions - and these are for a reason. In today’s Britain sex outside marriage has become a cultural norm while in Islam sex outside a marital relationship is not allowed.

Despite some of these intrinsic differences I am, along with majority of the Muslim citizens of this country, willing to integrate fully but are you willing to accept me fully? My definition of integration is to retain my identity and values and you retain yours but we agree to interact on civic duties as equal partners, we work for the well being of our country and all the citizens. We run our affairs in a democratic, pluralistic and transparent manner. The aim would be to create a society in which we have unrestricted and equal association.

4 comments

Rich's picture

I think the Masroors of this world have a singular point of view. Using his discussion, would the opposite be accepted? Namely, how would his "typical" Brit be received in a Muslim country? "I prefer to drink alcohol. I prefer to have premarital sex; as a woman I prefer to wear shorts in the summer with my hair blowing in the wind and meet my homosexual friends down at the bar". You can wordsmith integration and assimilation, but when you choose to live in another country either accept its customs or its consequences.

SacredLiving's picture

I second dissident junk's sentiments: Masroor's "contribution" (I use the term loosely) is just plain facile, simplistic and thoroughly irrelevent. Why is the New Statesman commissioning fluff like this? It is without substance and cliche-ridden. If this is where "Islamic" discourse is at on these issues... I fear for Muslim communities. Masroor speaks about "Islam" like it's a fixed, uninterpreted two-dimensional belief that is more concerned with gender "interactions" and inebriation than it is about saving souls and leading lives of spiritual value. Shame on Masroor for being Islam such an injustice.

This would barely pass for C in a GCSE religion class.

Mr Kampfner - please, please stop the madness. We deserve something a little better.

I feel sorry for those who take this poorly considered argument seriously. Mr Masroor may be this passes for intelligent discourse for a Friday sermon. For NS readers, it simply doesn't cut it.

Sun's picture

I think this is a wonderful explanation to what assimilation versus integration means. It can be applied to any religion, any minority, any immigrant group - the general description is quite universal. Thank you !

dissident junk's picture

This article is sloppy and ill-thought out, betraying the very same stereotypical attitudes to others that I suspect Masroor loathes when applied to his religious group, and, as such, stops the idea of integration in its tracks.

For a start, the idea that british society's social life is based around drinking alcohol is a lazy assumption, based on prejudice and inaccurate media focus. It suggests that all social activity occurs in public houses or bars. This is simply not the case.

In my area of West Yorkshire, a significant number of British people, young and old, engage in social activities that are anathema to alcohol consumption: namely joining clubs for road and cross country running, cycling, walking and rambling. If I drive up to moorland on a nice sunday, I see families flying kites, picniking, messing with remote control planes, eating ice-cream and going for walks. Our local pubs are largely empty these days and, as a result, many have closed over the last five years.

I would class myself as an average Brit living in an averagely lower to middle class area and no-one in my extended family spends any time at all in pubs and bars. yes, they go to restaurants sometimes, but they visit the cinema, join dance classes, do yoga, go skateboarding, get involved in food festivals, chat in the chemist and browse around garden centres or go for coffee after an afternoon shopping.

I dare say a lot of other Brits, outside of teenagers and 20-somethings in town centres, are the same. Our activities, in no way, prohibit people from other creeds: we have a yoga class and creche purely for mothers and babies, so no problem with the male gaze.

And this idea about sex outside 'marriage' needs unpicking. It depends what you mean by marriage: legal sanction or religious sanction or familial sanction? As I am sure Masroor is aware that many Muslim couples in Britai would not be classified as married within a British legal context as they have not registered their religious marriage within a civil office. To the British legal system, these marriages are, at present, cohabitation.

But Masroor would probably argue that these people are indeed married, which suggests he believes marriage to be a familial and religious sanction. Which means there is little difference really, between, my cohabitation with my partner if my parents, community and church support and agree with our existence as a joint unit and treat us as though we are a joined unit, regardless of wether we have registered our union or not.

Of course, this does not address the situation of casual sex, but then I would suggest that most people over 25 are generally rather monogamous, although it may be serial, and tend to live with partners in a cohabitation type arrangement.

I am sorry, Masroor, but I could not let you get away without considering the two 'oh, look at all these terrible things that mean we cannot integrate" points you made more carefully. If I was being really awkward, I could suggest you are being a little "britishophobic"?

Latest tweets