The answers on Hawramani.com are based on the research of Ikram Hawramani in the Quran, hadith, scholarly works and respected fatwa sources. You can view Ikram Hawramani's credentials on the about page. Please note that we do not issue fatwas, we only compile the opinions of respected scholars (even when a fatwa is not explicitly cited) to make their opinions accessible to English-speaking Muslims. If an answer does not cite fatwas, please feel free to leave a comment asking for a fatwa citation and we will update the answer as soon as possible to include fatwas.

IslamQA: On Muslim migrant criminal and uncivilized behavior in the West

Why are Muslim migrants so destructive to whatever nation harbors them? They actually use their faith to justify their criminal behaviour, leeching off the welfare state, and anti-western sentiments. Catholic South America is just as bad but those who do the same don't justify it with their faith; there's no crusade mentallity against 'infidels' when they migrate. Though majority of Muslims aren't terrorist, vast majority (in South Asia and parts of Africa) hold wahabi-like backwards views.

The problem is not Islam. There are millions of Iranian immigrants in California that no one hears about because they are just like ordinary, middle class American. The same applies to most of the Muslims in Canada.

The problem is letting in immigrants who have a high rate of criminality in their home countries, and this changes from country to country. If the migrants in Germany had all been Malaysian there would have been then 95% of the current problems would not have existed.

Similarly, if any Muslim population you look at has a high rate of criminality, then neighboring non-Muslims who are genetically and culturally similar will be just like them in criminality. A good case is Indian Muslims versus Indian Hindus. Indian Hindus are in no shape or form superior to Indian Muslims. Whatever problems Indian Muslims have, Indian Hindus have them too. If Indian Muslim immigrants are more criminal than the native population in a country like Germany, then Indian Hindus too would be more criminal than the native population.

My point is that the socio-economic status of a Muslim population tells us everything we need to know about their rate of criminality; Islam is irrelevant here. In fact Islam has a positive contribution; a country like Egypt is doing far better in criminality and scientific output, for example, compared to Christian countries of similar socio-economic status (mostly in Latin America). The same applies to Iran compared to Armenia (which has a higher IQ and is Christian). Iran has a lower homicide rate and produces far more scientific research per citizen compared to this neighboring Christian country.

We can also compare Senegal (Muslim majority African country) to neighboring Christian countries. Senegal is doing far better than them, the rate of rape for example is an order of magnitude lower than a Christian African country of similar socio-economic status I compared it to some time back.

I know people like to blame Islam for the problems they see among Muslims. This is what I call amateur sociology; it is done by people who are completely ignorant about standard scientific practices like controls and comparing like for like.

To put it another way, problematic Muslim populations would be even worse if we take away Islam from them. Do you think the criminals among these migrants are devout Muslims? The criminal underclass of the Middle East is only Muslim in name, and it fits the propaganda purposes of anti-Muslim sources to contribute their criminality to Islam when we can actually make the argument that their criminality is due to their lack of Islam; due to the fact that they have never taken Islam to heart, never pray and never read the Quran.

I agree that many, especially in Pakistan, hold Wahhabi-like views. This is thanks to a Saudi-US-Pakistani program to spread Wahhabism in that country for geopolitical reasons (see Professor Andrew J. Bacevich’s America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History). A recent study I read said that there were over 100 Saudi-funded madrasas in a single Pakistani state. The people of Pakistan have been used like chess pieces by American war planners who wanted to weaken the Soviet Union by creating an army of intolerant jihadists. And the Saudis like to extend their power all over the Islamic world by producing Wahhabi ideologues submissive to their commands. And the Taliban, which literally means “the Students”, were the products of this Saudi-US-Pakistani project.

Winston Churchill was giving Ibn Saud (the founder of modern Saudi Arabia) an annual sum of 100,000 British pounds to help him succeed in his war on the rest of the Muslims of Arabia even as he, Churchill, acknowledged in the British Parliament that his fighters were bloodthirsty and utterly intolerant (see Professor Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam) . And more recently it has been American support that has been keeping them in power. Blaming Muslims for Wahhabism is a perfect case of blaming the victim. This ideology has been a tool of power for different states wishing to gain power and manipulate Muslim populations. A primary reason it was adopted by the Saudis originally in the 18th century was that it gave them the right to attack and enslave fellow Muslim tribes, something that mainstream Islam prohibited. It helped free them from all the limitations of Islamic law by defining all Muslims who disagreed with them as worse than animals. Ibn Saud considered the Karbala massacre of 1802, in which thousands of innocent men, women and children were slaughtered by Wahhabis, a great success.

The majority of people in whatever Muslim country you look at are not Wahhabis, not even in Saudi Arabia. Wahhbabism can only exist when there is a power forcing it on people from above (or paying people to adopt it, as in Pakistan). Most Muslims just want to get along and are not obsessed with religion. Generally the media gives all of its attention to the 0.01% of extremist and intolerant Muslims and ignores the 99.99% who are just ordinary people.

I do not know if any statistics exist, but I would be highly skeptical of any claim that more than a few percent of people in Pakistan actually follow Wahhabism or similar versions of Islam. There may be many wannabe Wahhabis; many in Pakistan probably mistakenly think it is a “pure and authentic” version of Islam (not realizing that the people of Mecca and Medina strongly disliked the Wahhabis when they took over in the 1920′s and had no respect for them. Ibn Saud had to import clerics from Egypt because the people of the Hijaz would not listen to Wahhabi clerics). But even among those who mistakenly think Wahhabism is pure and authentic Islam, only a small number of them will be willing to actually learn about it and follow it. Most of them will continue to listen to music, watch cartoons, and do whatever else their cultural common sense tells them regardless of what the Wahhabis say.

It is my belief that if the Saudi funding for Wahhabism is cut off, it will immediately collapse wherever it is because Wahhabism has never spread anywhere in the world organically. It has always had a political power behind it, and when that political power is removed (as happened in the 1840′s in the town of Dawmat al-Jandal in Arabia), people automatically revert back to a more sensible and tolerant version of Islam that fits their culture (Wahhabism wants to wipe out culture so that everyone may become a Homo Wahhabicus with nothing in their brains except Wahhabism, while mainstream Islam respects culture and does not expect people to stop being human in order to be Muslim).

And God knows best.
If you have a question, please email me at contact@hawramani.com

Leave a Reply

Commenting rules: Politeness is the only rule. We respect your right to disagree with anything we say. But comments with profanity and insults will be deleted.

Your email address will not be published.