You'll hear some radical Islamic elements make this argument: 

"The West demands integration from Muslims, but that's hypocritical. Secularism is all about individualism, i.e. to let people do whatever they want, right? So demanding 'social integration' contradicts the very foundation of liberalism and secularism."

Sounds clever. But it's completely wrong. And it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what secularism and integration actually mean.

What Integration Does NOT Mean

Let's be crystal clear about what nobody is asking:

• Nobody is forcing you to eat pork
• Nobody is forcing you to drink alcohol
• Nobody is forcing you to celebrate Christmas
• Nobody is forcing you to marry a non-Muslim

These are private, individual choices. They're protected by freedom of religion. Always have been, always will be.

What Integration Actually Means

Integration means accepting some basic ground rules for living together:

1. The country's constitution and laws come first - above any religious rules. Period.

2. All citizens have exactly the same rights and duties - regardless of what faith they follow or don't follow.

3. No group gets to discriminate or create parallel societies - where they treat non-members as morally inferior or socially untouchable.

That's it. That's what we're asking for.

Where the Problem Actually Starts

Criticism arises when religious interpretations get used to enforce "collective behaviour" that actively rejects equal participation in society. For example:

• Teaching children that non-Muslims can never be their friends
• Declaring forbidden and threatening with social boycotts by entire community for marrying a non-Muslim
• Discouraging kids from joining school events, sports clubs, or national celebrations because non-Muslims will be there
• Accepting or tolerating parallel legal systems (informal Sharia councils, family "honour" rules, etc.)

See the difference? These aren't personal choices. These are collective practices that turn individual religious freedom into a tool for segregation and discrimination based on faith.

And that's the exact opposite of what secularism promises, i.e. equal treatment regardless of religion.

Other Groups Figured This Out

Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists - people from all backgrounds live their beliefs in Western countries without systematic separation from the rest of society.

Sure, there were conflicts in the past. Some ultra-orthodox Christian or Jewish communities had rules that clashed with the wider society. But you know what happened? Dialogue. Court decisions. Clarification that constitutional equality comes first.

They figured it out. And they did it without claiming it destroyed their faith.

What Secularism Actually Defends

A secular state doesn't favour one religion over another. But it's not value-free either.

It actively defends:

• Human dignity for everyone
• Gender equality
• Democratic decision-making

When someone demands the right to treat people differently because of their beliefs, they're not defending religious freedom anymore. They're undermining the very foundation of a pluralistic society.

The Bottom Line

Asking all citizens, including Muslims, to accept the basic rules of secular democracy is not:

• Islamophobic
• Illiberal
• A violation of personal freedom

It's simply the logical consequence of living together on equal terms.

Your religious beliefs can absolutely shape your private life. But they cannot justify collective discrimination. They cannot justify creating separated societies within a society.

That's not asking too much. That's asking for the bare minimum.

Without Integration, Societies Risk Fragmentation

When large groups live side-by-side but don't share basic values, language, or a sense of common citizenship, something dangerous starts to happen. Sociologists call it "parallel societies" or, in extreme cases, "balkanization."

It's when a country doesn't break into separate states, but breaks into mutually distrustful communities that increasingly organize their lives separately from each other.

Five Warning Signs This is Happening

1. Residential and social segregation
People voluntarily (or under social pressure) live, shop, celebrate, and marry almost exclusively within their own religious or cultural circle.

2. Separate value systems
Core principles that the majority sees as non-negotiable, like equality of men and women, freedom to leave a religion, acceptance of same-sex relationships, the primacy of state law over religious rules, all these get openly questioned or rejected by significant parts of one community.

3. Emergence of parallel structures
Informal religious courts, private security groups, or school systems pop up that compete with state institutions and sometimes place religious norms above national law.

4. Growing mutual mistrust
The majority population starts feeling that a growing minority no longer identifies with the country's basic order. Meanwhile, members of the minority increasingly see the majority as hostile to their faith and way of life.

5. Political polarization
Parties and movements emerge that mobilize almost exclusively along religious or ethnic lines. Politics shifts from left-right debates to "us versus them" identity conflicts. The center weakens. Extremist voices on all sides get stronger.

We've Seen This Happen

Look at parts of Europe over the last twenty years, like certain districts of Brussels, Paris, Rotterdam, Malmö, some boroughs of London and Berlin.

This dynamic doesn't require a majority of extremists. It only needs a critical mass of people who, for ideological reasons, consciously limit interaction with the rest of society. 

The result isn't vibrant multiculturalism. It's slow-motion fragmentation that:

• Makes everyday coexistence harder
• Raises the cost of welfare and security
• Reduces economic mobility
• Threatens the open, pluralistic character of the society that originally welcomed immigrants

Integration is Not Cultural Submission

Learning the language, accepting the constitution as the highest authority, participating in common public spaces, all this isn't about abandoning your culture or faith.

It's the only proven way to prevent a nation from quietly breaking apart from within.

Political Islam vs. Secular Democracy - A Fundamental Conflict

A significant current within political Islam (Islamism) does not accept the permanent separation of religion and state.

This isn't speculation. It's stated openly in the writings and speeches of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and various Salafist networks.

Their declared aim? Replace secular law with classical Sharia regulations in criminal justice, family law, freedom of speech, and gender equality.

Most Muslims Don't Want This

Let us be absolutely clear that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims do not share this vision. They just want to live in peace.

But radical Islamist activists? They use democratic freedoms tactically today while working toward a society where religious law would stand above the constitution tomorrow.

That's why most Western democracies now make a clear distinction:

• Islam as a private faith → Fully protected
• Islamism as a totalitarian political ideology → Monitored and, where necessary, restricted

"Most Muslims Are Peaceful" - Why That's Not Enough

You hear it all the time: "Most Muslims are peaceful."

And it's true. The vast majority of Muslims living in Western countries don't commit violence and want to live peacefully with their neighbours.

But here's the thing that "Being peaceful" in the narrow sense of "not personally committing violence" is not the same as actively supporting the secular democratic order.

Peaceful But Not Loyal?

A person or group can be completely non-violent today and still reject core principles of our constitution. For example, by believing that:

• Religious laws (Sharia) should eventually replace secular laws
• Democracy is illegitimate because sovereignty belongs only to God
• Men and women, believers and non-believers, straight and gay people should not have equal rights
• Apostates or critics of religion deserve harsh punishment

If large numbers of people quietly hold these views while taking full advantage of democratic freedoms (freedom of religion, welfare system, right to vote), they're not truly loyal to the constitutional order.

They're making tactical use of it. Waiting. Hoping the "balance of power" shifts someday.

Conditional Peace is Not Real Peace

This isn't true acceptance of secularism. This is conditional acceptance.

And that "peace" is conditional on their current lack of power.

True integration requires what is called Constitutional Fidelity, i.e. the unreserved acceptance of secular values and democratic legal order as supreme.

Only those who genuinely accept that secular human rights trump conflicting religious rulings deserve to be called loyal citizens.

Everyone else? They're conditionally complying while inwardly opposing the system, intending to subvert it when they can.

That's not "peaceful." That's strategic patience. And it poses a fundamental threat to democratic stability.

Why "Muslimophobia" Can't Be Eliminated Alone - The Double Standard Problem

Look, prejudice against Muslims exists in Western societies. That's undeniable. And no democratic state should tolerate discrimination or violence against people just because they're Muslim.

But here's what's also true that mistrust toward Islam as a political and legal system has grown significantly in Europe and North America over the past thirty years.

And when people simply label every criticism "Islamophobia" and demand silence, they ignore a question that many citizens legitimately ask:

Why should Western societies grant religious and political freedoms to a movement whose representatives, in countries governed by Islamic law, deny exactly those same freedoms to non-Muslims and Muslim dissidents?

The Concrete Examples Are Right There

This isn't theoretical. This is documented reality:

In Western countries:

• Everyone, including Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood organizations, can freely proselytize
• Build mosques
• Criticize other religions

In Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and other Sharia-governed states:

• Converting a Muslim to another religion? Prison or death.
• Criticizing Islam? Can be a capital offense.
• Blasphemy laws are used systematically against religious minorities - Christians, Ahmadis, atheists.

This double standard isn't invented by "right-wing populists." It's documented year after year by:

• Amnesty International
• Human Rights Watch
• U.S. State Department religious freedom reports
• European Court of Human Rights

Who's Really Responsible for Rising Animosity?

So here's the crucial question: Who's truly responsible for growing animosity against Muslims?

The answer is uncomfortable but honest: The root cause lies with radical Muslim ideology itself.

Its inherent double standards. Its persecution of non-believers. Its treatment of ex-Muslims as enemies worthy of death.

Until Kafirophobia ends. Until radical Muslims commit to reciprocity and universal human rights. Until they grant others the same freedoms they demand for themselves.

Until then? It's impossible to completely eradicate the resulting Muslimophobia.

Right now, there's a singular focus on combating Muslimophobia while neglecting to confront intolerance and injustice within their own ranks.

That guarantees the cycle continues.

The Paradox of Tolerance - Why Liberals Are Losing Voters to the Far Right

Here's something painful to watch that for decades, liberal secular forces in Europe were the strongest advocates for:

• Opening borders to refugees and migrants from Muslim-majority countries
• Granting them full equal rights
• Fighting racism and everyday discrimination against Muslims

Noble goals. The right thing to do.

But today? Many of these same voters are turning toward parties that were once considered far-right.

Why?

The Liberal Blind Spot

Because large parts of the liberal left refused for years to openly name and confront a specific problem, i.e. the spread of supremacist, intolerant interpretations of Islam.

Interpretations that explicitly teach contempt or enmity toward:

• Non-Muslims
• Women who don't conform
• Apostates
• Jews
• LGBTQ+ people
• Secularism

And when secular liberals react to every criticism of these ideologies with accusations of "Islamophobia" or "racism," they achieve three disastrous things:

1. They discredit their own anti-racism credentials: Ordinary citizens see the double standard every day. They stop trusting liberal claims about tolerance.

2. They leave legitimate criticism to the far right: When mainstream liberals won't talk about real problems, populist parties become the only ones willing to address them.

3. They help those parties grow: Millions of voters feel only these parties are willing to talk about problems that actually exist.

Karl Popper Had It Right

The philosopher Karl Popper described this perfectly:

"Tolerance of intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance itself."

In practice? Defending Muslim individuals against hatred and discrimination is an elementary duty of any liberal movement.

But defending ideologies that reject equality, democracy, and pluralism? That's not defending tolerance. That's the opposite.

"But What About Iraq and Afghanistan?"

You'll hear this argument from radical preachers: "Muslims hate the West because you invaded and killed thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Wars Are Not the Real Reason for hatred against the West by Radical Muslims

Wars are unfortunate. They're terrible. But they're not why radical Muslims hate the West.

The real reasons are:

1. Their Quranic interpretation, leading to Kafirophobia
2. The desire to IMPOSE Sharia on the non-Muslim world by force

Let's Look at History

When Islamic states held power, their warfare was governed by classical Sharia jurisprudence. The rules that radical Islamists want to enforce today included:

• Killing male combatants
• Enslaving and sexually exploiting women and children from conquered groups
• Seizing property as spoils of war
• "Slavery by birth" - children of slaves remained slaves forever

From Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1730a:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary (only) in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others (and made them slaves). 

Or consider the Islamic Caliphate of Turkey's actions against its opponents in Europe over centuries when it held significant power.

Curiously, radical Islamic preachers today never mention these atrocities.

The West Has Shown Remarkable Forgiveness

Despite past conflicts, the West has demonstrated extraordinary capacity for reconciliation:

• Wars between European nations and Germany didn't lead to lasting hatred of ordinary Germans
• The war between the US and Japan didn't result in permanent animosity toward Japanese people
• The West has welcomed millions of Muslim immigrants and granted them equal human rights

There's no legal obligation for Western countries to accept Muslim immigrants because of colonial history. These decisions are motivated by humanitarian considerations.

Meanwhile, Islamic countries often don't extend the same hospitality even to Muslims from other Islamic nations.

The Fundamental Problem

Wars were waged by governments. You could understand if extremists only hated Western governments for those wars.

But no. Their hatred is directed at:

• The Western SECULAR system itself
• Western people in general (the radical interpretation of Kafirophobia)

These extremists live in secular societies but have zero loyalty to secularism. They oppose it. They wage relentless war against the secular order, aiming to destroy it and impose Sharia by force.

They take their inspiration directly from the radical Quranic interpretation of Kafirophobia.

Pakistani Taliban vs. Islamic Pakistan - Proof It's Not About Western Wars

Want proof the conflict isn't really about Iraq or Afghanistan? Look at what happened within Pakistan itself.

In 2009, the Pakistani government gave control of the Swat region to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to establish Sharia law there.

You'd think that would satisfy them, right?

They Still Weren't Happy

Despite this concession, the TTP continued to denounce:

• The Islamic Constitution of Pakistan as a "Kafir" system
• Pakistani Islamic democracy as a "Kafir" system

After the agreement, the Pakistani Taliban regrouped, seized control of the adjacent Buner area, and advanced toward Islamabad, intending to impose Sharia by force all over Pakistan.

An internal conflict erupted. One Islamic system fighting another Islamic system. The former calling the latter "Kafir."

The results:

• Over 70,000 Pakistani Muslims killed
• More than 10 million displaced as refugees in their own country

What This Proves

If radical Islamists reject even Pakistan's Islamic constitution, Islamic democracy, and Islamic system, they will never accept the democracy and secularism of Western nations.

They don't hate the Western system because of wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.

They hate it because of:

1. Their radical Quranic interpretation of Kafirophobia
2. Their desire to destroy the Western system and impose Sharia by force on all non-Muslim countries

That's the uncomfortable truth.