I'm also surprised that Austria made it above Germany. I know that in terms of sheer numbers Germany must have more Muslims, but it's still somewhat surprise given that I hear all the time about Germany's huge Turkish population and their acceptance of refugees while I hear nothing about Austria's Muslim population.
Austria and Sweden surprised me. Is it because they're "safer" countries with a lower crime rate for migrants? Surprised UK didn't make the list - Probably because our population is already high
Yeah, large communities in London. But also here in Northern England, towns like Bolton, Blackburn, Oldham, Preston, Bradford, Leeds.. And then big cities like Manchester and Birmingham have many Muslim communities, so thought that rate might have been higher, but I guess as it is a percentage it could be as there's so many people in the UK to start with.
That's absolutely wrong. The State and public officials cannot ask about religious affiliation, but if you're a private person or entity, you can ask all you want.
It's not illegal. Racial surveys and polls are illegal, but it's not when it comes to religion. For instance, one of the last polls of Ifop was about the Laïcité in high school. There were stats about Muslims' feelings about Laïcité.
The Balkans, except some country (for example Serbia), are correct answers. It isn't a big surprise, if you know that, these countries were part of the Ottoman Empire. The other muslim countries are well-know imigration countries. Russia is interesting. The chechens and tatars are muslims, maybe because the islamic world has big impact on these territories. I'm curious about your opinion in this topic.
The parts of Russia that are majority-Muslim were also part of the Ottoman Empire, or else inhabited by other Muslim Turkic or central Asian people. Look at a map. You'll see Russia is closer to Turkey than Bosnia is.
That's incorrect. Tatars, Bashkirs and Nogai (6 millions summary) never were related to Ottomans, their homeland are Volga, Ural steppes and Siberia (do you know about Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates?). Next, Caucasian nations (nearly 5 million) weren't connected with Ottomans strongly, and none of them can be named close to Persian (only mostly Christian Ossetians). Russia has many native Azerbaijanis and Kazakhs, but first were a puppet state of Turkey for a short time in 1918 (Germany and Croatia have stronger ties if think your way), and Kazakhs aren't related with Ottoman empire any way. Only Russian Muslim nations who really were tied with Ottomans were Circassians and Crimean Tatars, both vassal states and a very small nations today, and Azerbaijanis being Persian vassal states. So if this statement is right only on 3% (360k from 12.000k)
If France was so worried about this they might have wanted to consider it before colonizing much of North Africa. Austria and Sweden are nice places to live with relatively low populations that receive a disproportionately high number of immigrants. In each of these three cases the present number of Muslims in the country I think points toward some success the country enjoyed in the present or recent past. Each new generation faces new challenges. If these societies are strong they will continue to thrive in the future.
People from Islamic countries do not share the values the majority of Europeans share. In my opinion, all religions are a barrier to progress, and Islam is currently the largest barrier to progress. I cannot see continued levels of Islamic immigration to Europe ending well.
Part of the problem I think is that Muslims tend to stick together in their host country, they stick to their culture and this is definitely a problem.
@purplememes "ancestors", like colonization was 1000 years ago. 80 years ago almost all Asia and Africa still belonged to Europe. This is the beautiful world Europeans created, immigration is part of it. Enjoy.
So what if they did? Was France there to punish Muslims for their imperial past? Or to set up an empire of its own? If the latter (and it obviously was the latter), well there are consequences for doing that. And no, it's not a punishment. It's just observing the fact of cause and effect.
In fact the opposite is true, up until the 20th century the vast majority of science and technology in Europe and the Middle east was create by religious sponsered organisations and individuals.
It was churches and mosques that promoted studies of medicine, astronomy, physiology and arcitecture through out the middle ages and early modern period.
Even the very concept of human rights and movements like abolisionism was created by christian sects like the quakers.
Just look at how many charitable organisations are christian or mulsim, the red cross, red crescent, save the children, city mission to name a few.
Even ethical consent is religious in origin.
Read a history book or two before making bland infactual statements.
@Bdubz - I can't recall saying people shouldn't be allowed to keep their culture?
It is not authoritarian to dislike cultures that are overwhelmingly homophobic and sexist and it is perfectly acceptable to wish that anyone who wants to immigrate to the West, will adopt the culture of their host country.
If you disagree with progressive values then I don't want you in my country.
On the one hand, I agree. I do not want more homophobia and misogyny. On the other hand, I think it's... bizarre... to presume that a Muslim MUST adopt the culture of their host country to not be homophobic and misogynistic.
Muslim cultures are not defined by either of these prejudices. They are common prejudices in many Muslim societies, but it is perfectly possible for an Egyptian immigrant for example to continue practicing Islam, speaking Arabic, cooking Egyptian meals, following Egyptian etiquette, and involving himself in the local Muslim community without being a homophobe or a misogynist, and such cases have happened. I would not consider that assimilation.
Also, while not as strongly as in literal Islamic theocracies, homophobia and misogyny are both present and healthy in many European societies. "Adopting host culture" could mean joining a far-right hate group (which is not unknown among ex-Muslims who "overcorrect", unfortunately).
This is very true and should seem obvious. A lot of Muslims in the United States adopt some of the values of their host countries without assimilating, especially after a generation or two. Most young, American-born immigrants are not massive racists or sexists or homophobes. In fact, many find common cause with minority groups because of a shared history of discrimination. This doesn't take away from their ethnic or cultural identity. I'm not a Muslim, but as a Bangladeshi, there are values that I find backward and outdated about American culture. There are also values I find backward and outdated about Bengali culture. I'm allowed to cherry pick what values I think are best from both cultures and I think I'm a better person because of it.
@mizu - Very surprising that religious institutions promoted learning in Europe. It's almost as if the vast majority of people were religious and such institutions had all the wealth...
Yeah, mizu, that's so off... Just because the Church controlled literally everything in Europe for so long doesn't mean that religion generally is not an impediment to scientific progress. Same goes for Islam in the Muslim world. This is like saying the United States and Soviet Union were chiefly responsible for keeping the number of nuclear warheads in the world low because in the 1990s they each agreed to destroy thousands of them while those war mongers in Switzerland didn't get rid of any.
Religion and Science until the 20th century always went hand in hand. People constantly talk about how religion has always worked against science which as pointed out is simply not true.
Yes religion has been used to impede scientific process but to no where near the level that it has supported it and certainly not to the level many often claim.
The idea that religion is bad for society and is responsible for all the evils of the world is wrong and not based on any reality.
If North Africa was so worried about being colonized they might have wanted to consider it before taking part in slave trade of europeans slaves, raiding european coasts, and being backwards generally speaking. Its not like they were some kind of peaceniks.
They are a country according to the US and many other countries that believe in national autonomy. If you don't agree with that, well then they probably should be allowed to be a country so they can protect themselves and their culture.
The definition of a country is so broad that no one can tell defiantly if an area is actually a country and not an autonomous area/semi-autonomous area. If your definition is an area where all other "countries" accept it, then China and the Korean Peninsula just don't belong to anyone. If your definition is any autonomous area, then there are over 250 countries.
Cyprus is a European country because it's culturally closer to Europe, and has been for thousands of years. Its also on the Eur(asian) tectonic plate, and so must be European.
Back in Amsterdam for the first time in about 18 years. I knew that the number of Muslim immigrants had increased dramatically here in the interim, but actually seeing it it's almost shocking that The Netherlands doesn't show up on the quiz. The neighborhood I'm in in Western Amsterdam is quite large and has to be 90-98% Muslim - mostly Turks and Algerians. I was just in Austria about a week ago and didn't see nearly as many. Maybe other cities are different.
You can see the islamophobia increase as time goes on in the comments, but hey lets elect more extremist european leaders and spread more hatred towards eachother on this continent...
How does one determine what does or doesn't "belong in Europe"? What does that concept mean?
Does Christianity "belong" in Europe? It is every bit as plagiarized from Judaism as Islam is (maybe even a bit moreso) and, if popular protests are to be believed, Jews don't "belong" anywhere.
Islam doesn't belong anywhere because its a barbaric religion. If islam never happened, we could've had peaceful and prosperous North Africa and Middle East, maybe even as a part of the EU.
@Bigdaddy77 If your theory was true then the Middle East and North Africa would have been less prosperous than the West since the beginning of Islam, which is simply not true. Have you heard of the Islamic Golden Age? The Islamic world was just as prosperous as Europe until the beginning of colonialism and imperialism. Of course there are also religious factors involved, but you must be really uneducated to believe that Islam is the sole reason for the generally poor cultural, political and economic state of the Islamic world today.
No. It was prosperous before islam. Then islam literally did nothing to improve the region. They just kind of preserved what they conquered. Europe was in many ways ahead or at least similar to the islamic world and we call that the dark ages. Speaks volumes.
Thousands of years ago North Africa and Middle East were also ethnically similar to todays southern Italy. In Tunisia there were many blondes until like 1700s.
To say islam did nothing to improve the region back in the middle ages is just negative historical knowledge. As for their problems today, you can say islam is one of them, but why does everyone choose to close their eyes on what Russian and American influence did to them and continues to do, officially and unofficially? We need to stop oversimplifying things, maybe actually talk to some of these Muslims who are apparently everywhere. All this coming from a Christian
Yeah but they literally just preserved some Roman stuff. This islamic golden age is just living off the things that they stole a couple of years before. Literally what Europe calls "dark ages", for islam is "golden age" yet they were not that different. They contributed virtually nothing in the history of the world.
All these countries have zero "Islamic" residents because the correct word to refer to someone of the Islamic faith is Muslim. They have Muslim residents, not Islamic residents.
Just like the Christians in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa and the Hindus and Buddhists in South Asia are "islam-free" and therefore thriving too? Or does it only help if you do not get colonized by European powers?
Otherwise, great quiz! The easiest was obviously Albania, due to the thumbnail...
Do you have quizzes like "Most Islamic Asian/African/American Countries"? That would be cool to know. :-)
Part of the problem I think is that Muslims tend to stick together in their host country, they stick to their culture and this is definitely a problem.
This is such a silly uneducated statement.
In fact the opposite is true, up until the 20th century the vast majority of science and technology in Europe and the Middle east was create by religious sponsered organisations and individuals.
It was churches and mosques that promoted studies of medicine, astronomy, physiology and arcitecture through out the middle ages and early modern period.
Even the very concept of human rights and movements like abolisionism was created by christian sects like the quakers.
Just look at how many charitable organisations are christian or mulsim, the red cross, red crescent, save the children, city mission to name a few.
Even ethical consent is religious in origin.
Read a history book or two before making bland infactual statements.
It is not authoritarian to dislike cultures that are overwhelmingly homophobic and sexist and it is perfectly acceptable to wish that anyone who wants to immigrate to the West, will adopt the culture of their host country.
If you disagree with progressive values then I don't want you in my country.
On the one hand, I agree. I do not want more homophobia and misogyny. On the other hand, I think it's... bizarre... to presume that a Muslim MUST adopt the culture of their host country to not be homophobic and misogynistic.
Muslim cultures are not defined by either of these prejudices. They are common prejudices in many Muslim societies, but it is perfectly possible for an Egyptian immigrant for example to continue practicing Islam, speaking Arabic, cooking Egyptian meals, following Egyptian etiquette, and involving himself in the local Muslim community without being a homophobe or a misogynist, and such cases have happened. I would not consider that assimilation.
Also, while not as strongly as in literal Islamic theocracies, homophobia and misogyny are both present and healthy in many European societies. "Adopting host culture" could mean joining a far-right hate group (which is not unknown among ex-Muslims who "overcorrect", unfortunately).
Yes religion has been used to impede scientific process but to no where near the level that it has supported it and certainly not to the level many often claim.
The idea that religion is bad for society and is responsible for all the evils of the world is wrong and not based on any reality.
.
Cyprus is a European country because it's culturally closer to Europe, and has been for thousands of years. Its also on the Eur(asian) tectonic plate, and so must be European.
Does Christianity "belong" in Europe? It is every bit as plagiarized from Judaism as Islam is (maybe even a bit moreso) and, if popular protests are to be believed, Jews don't "belong" anywhere.
So now what?
Thousands of years ago North Africa and Middle East were also ethnically similar to todays southern Italy. In Tunisia there were many blondes until like 1700s.
12% is possible.