INDIA - CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING

Narendar Singh

NS
Professional
Jan 31, 2018
120
362
Meerut
Forty-nine people are confirmed dead after Friday’s shootings at two mosques in the city in New Zealand’s South Island. Forty-one people died at Al Noor mosque and seven at Linwood mosque. Another victim died later at hospital. The attack, launched during Friday prayers when both mosques were packed, was livestreamed via a camera strapped to the perpetrator. Horrific images of bloodshed and people desperately trying to evade the gunman were copied and shared on social media sites including YouTube.
What is in it for India?
Migration is as old as human civilisation. Population movements have always played a vital role in the structural transformation of societies and economies. However, unlike in the past when migration involved establishment of new habitations in fertile and virgin lands, migration today is characterised by movement of populations to other countries with people and cultures of their own. It therefore raises issues regarding loyalty, identity, development and security.
Bangladeshi migrants to India consist of Muslim migrants and Hindu refugees, both categories having different sets of reasons to migrate. But the overriding consideration in both the cases is ethnic commonalties with Indian Bengalis. Although Bangladeshis have their national identity within the nation-state framework, they identify themselves as Bengalis and share a common ethno-cultural ethos and heritage with Bengalis across the border. However, the basis of a separate nation-state for many Bangladeshis is that they are Muslims and their culture, language and religion is different from that of the Bengali Hindus of West Bengal. The unfolding and enforcement of Bangladeshi nationalism, promoted by the Bangladeshi National Party, had its effects on Bangladeshi migrants to India, in the sense that they carried with them their new-found national identity. It has been difficult, particularly for Bangladeshi Muslims, therefore, to merge into the Indian mainstream.
Problems arise when Nepalese in India try to assert their Nepali identity in exclusive terms vis-à-vis mainstream India. The Gorkha National Liberation Front [GNLF] in Darjeeling illustrates this tendency, even though it claims to protect the interests and rights of Indian Gorkhas only.
For the Indian state, the security implications of large-scale migration from both Bangladesh and Nepal and now from Myanmar are varied but inter-related, given the complex nature of migration and the multiple identities that migrants profess. They cover demographic changes, growth of radicalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism, regionalism, and, more importantly, involvement and even encroachment of foreign powers on the country’s “sovereign space”. All these threats to territorial integrity, core values or socio-political practices of the Indian state interact, sometimes reinforcing each other.
In general, however, in depth knowledge of national and regional cultural dynamics has not been strong point for Indian strategy, which has tended to rest on sturdy pillars of relative invulnerability and the capacity to mobilise force. In the volatile and uncertain security environment of the years to come, however, the assumption of technological and material advantage may not be safe one, nor will these advantages always suffice to ensure superiority in every possible contingency. The main adversary for India, Peoples Republic of China represents long term rival with considerable assets and great self confidence, derived in part from a highly distinctive and ancient culture.
India confronts a long term struggle to manage the dilemmas of the Muslim World and the associated dynamic of terrorism, that will demand of India sophisticated cultural awareness. Effective engagement in complex contingencies will demand from India and in depth knowledge of real and potential rivals. Strategy is not uniquely the product of culture, and culture itself is not lucid or unambiguous construct. But all strategy unfolds in cultural context, and cannot be fully and properly understood outside it.
One of the most important prerequisites for becoming a major soft power is to have “native ownership” of an ideology that can be used as a means of influence; that is, the ideology should be recognisable as a distinct and unique attribute of that particular country.
Pakistan’s ideology is based on Islamic ‘nationalism’ where it views itself as part of a greater ‘Ummah’, but is certainly not recognised by the members of the ‘Ummah’ as its leader. No one bothered when Pakistan refused to attend OIC Meeting. In other words, Pakistan does not have native ownership over its own ideology, which inevitably leads to Pakistan associating itself with other, more influential members of the ‘Ummah’ like Saudi Arabia and Iran, at the obvious expense of its own subcontinental origins.
India is fortunate to have large Hindu population which has the greatest tolerance. But for how long?
A favoured quote amongst Indians is that by Chinese ambassador and philosopher, Hu Shih: “India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20th centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border”; it was Indian Buddhism that helped shape Chinese civilisation. It is this age-old soft power that Modi started to tap into, whilst avoiding the hubris that comes with it. Humility in promoting Indian culture is particularly important in Asia where a lack of it has worked against India’s diplomats in the past.
Nye argued that “it is just as important to set the agenda and structure the situations in world politics as to get others to change in particular cases.” Soft power can help a nation set the agenda and alter the preferences of other nations before they come to the bargaining table. Its main instrument–public diplomacy–aims for milieu goals, the creation of an enabling political environment for a state’s foreign policy. However, as argued by Melissen, “public diplomacy cannot achieve its aims if it is inconsistent with a country’s foreign policy or military actions.” To foreign policy and military actions one must add domestic values, politics, and institutions. In order for soft power to succeed, a country’s message to the world cannot be at odds with the way it conducts itself at home and abroad. Hence comes the need for throwing away of secularism. It is an outdated concept. What is needed is strong action against anyone which strikes the national identity. Modi was right when it hit bases in Pakistan. It has done well to isolate China in world body. Modi has affirmed: “democracy” makes India a valuable partner for the world. Modi has consistently emphasised the importance of Indian democracy. The NDA government under AB Vajpayee then offered support to the US initiative to develop a “community of democracies” at the global level. Modi underscored spiritual linkages between India and Central Asia, marking a contrast with growing extremism around the world, suggesting that “the Islamic heritage of both India and Central Asia is defined by the highest ideals of Islam–knowledge, piety, compassion and welfare.” By emphasising India’s multicultural heritage, Modi undercut prevailing criticisms about his ideological leanings as a Hindu nationalist.
India is multicultural.
 
There is an oft repeated statement made by the followers of the faith of Islam, "Terror has no religion". It is especially more loud in the aftermath of any terror attack at any place in the world, where the perpetrator is the follower of Islam. While the statement by itself is true, one shall be hard put to deny the fact that while terror may, indeed, have no religion, the justification of terror in name of a religion (Islam), is not only rampant (by actions and words of the perpetrators) but also tacitly subscribed to by the so called 'innocent mute spectators' of the same religious denomination, who are complicit by their mere unwillingness to act against the perpetrators.

What we are seeing, in this specific act, is an increased outrage against the imposition of a so called 'secular' ideological mindset on societies, that by their very nature, are secular. This imposition in face of an ideology that encourages hate, intolerance of an alternative set of religious beliefs and encourages mute observation by it's own followers to acts of blatant terrorism in name of 'ummah' and 'threat to Islam', is an attack on the very fabric of the society that are secular.

Why does a nation, like India, when accused of 'growing intolerance' need to prove it's secular credentials on a day to day basis? Isn't the fact that the nation has the second largest population of followers of Islam a testimony to the fact itself? The argument that nations and societies who profess to be secular, need to prove themselves secular, is not only absurd, but also antithetical.

Let us take the example of an Islamic nation - that of UAE. One shall be hard pressed to call the nation secular and democratic by any stretch of imagination. The nation itself, describes itself as an Islamic nation, yet, we find churches, temples and gurudwaras in the Emirates, not only flourishing but also acknowledged as centers of harmony in the community. When UAE imposes restrictions on what one can do during the holy month of Ramzan, it also allows freedom within the framework of it's laws, for those of other religious denomination, to undertake activities otherwise prohibited by Islam. (example - licenses for purchase of Liquor for non-Muslims with designated shops catering to all brands and type of liquor).


Secularism of a nation has the best analogy in the ability of nation to achieve peaceful co-existence. A nation can achieve it's aims of non-violence and peaceful co-existence with all its neighbors and the comity of nations in general, when it has the strength to resort to violence and impose unacceptable costs on those who seek to undermine it's quest of same. Similarly, to achieve the aim of true secularism, a nation has to resolutely move to create an environment where the majority religion is guaranteed an atmosphere of security of it's own belief system. It is only once the State imposes conditions that ensure the survival and continuation of the major religious denomination, that the state can afford to provide conditions apt for the other religions to thrive.
 
Government of India seems to be redefining the terms on which India is likely to engage with the world in the coming years. Pragmatism coupled with a more confident assertion of Indian interests is likely to be the hallmark. Government of India is not shy about reaching out directly to new constituencies. he bedrock of a nation’s strength in contemporary global politics remains its economic strength. By putting the Indian story back into reckoning after callous mismanagement by its predecessor, the Government of India has shored up India’s previously dwindling credibility. The fact that it has been able to do this despite an obstructionist opposition is even more remarkable. For all the disruption of the Parliament by the opposition, the image of a business-minded Government of India remains intact for the outside world. Government of India is following the Realist international discourse built on the principle of give and take and, as the adage goes, there are no free lunches. Each country ruthlessly pursues its national interest and if other states get in the way, they find ways of winning them over, neutralising them or punishing them. Kautilyan injunctions call for pitilessly using saam (suasion), daam (purchase), dand (punishment) and bhed (division) as the ways of getting on in the real world.
 
Forty-nine people are confirmed dead after Friday’s shootings at two mosques in the city in New Zealand’s South Island. Forty-one people died at Al Noor mosque and seven at Linwood mosque. Another victim died later at hospital. The attack, launched during Friday prayers when both mosques were packed, was livestreamed via a camera strapped to the perpetrator. Horrific images of bloodshed and people desperately trying to evade the gunman were copied and shared on social media sites including YouTube.
What is in it for India?
Migration is as old as human civilisation. Population movements have always played a vital role in the structural transformation of societies and economies. However, unlike in the past when migration involved establishment of new habitations in fertile and virgin lands, migration today is characterised by movement of populations to other countries with people and cultures of their own. It therefore raises issues regarding loyalty, identity, development and security.
Bangladeshi migrants to India consist of Muslim migrants and Hindu refugees, both categories having different sets of reasons to migrate. But the overriding consideration in both the cases is ethnic commonalties with Indian Bengalis. Although Bangladeshis have their national identity within the nation-state framework, they identify themselves as Bengalis and share a common ethno-cultural ethos and heritage with Bengalis across the border. However, the basis of a separate nation-state for many Bangladeshis is that they are Muslims and their culture, language and religion is different from that of the Bengali Hindus of West Bengal. The unfolding and enforcement of Bangladeshi nationalism, promoted by the Bangladeshi National Party, had its effects on Bangladeshi migrants to India, in the sense that they carried with them their new-found national identity. It has been difficult, particularly for Bangladeshi Muslims, therefore, to merge into the Indian mainstream.
Problems arise when Nepalese in India try to assert their Nepali identity in exclusive terms vis-à-vis mainstream India. The Gorkha National Liberation Front [GNLF] in Darjeeling illustrates this tendency, even though it claims to protect the interests and rights of Indian Gorkhas only.
For the Indian state, the security implications of large-scale migration from both Bangladesh and Nepal and now from Myanmar are varied but inter-related, given the complex nature of migration and the multiple identities that migrants profess. They cover demographic changes, growth of radicalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism, regionalism, and, more importantly, involvement and even encroachment of foreign powers on the country’s “sovereign space”. All these threats to territorial integrity, core values or socio-political practices of the Indian state interact, sometimes reinforcing each other.
In general, however, in depth knowledge of national and regional cultural dynamics has not been strong point for Indian strategy, which has tended to rest on sturdy pillars of relative invulnerability and the capacity to mobilise force. In the volatile and uncertain security environment of the years to come, however, the assumption of technological and material advantage may not be safe one, nor will these advantages always suffice to ensure superiority in every possible contingency. The main adversary for India, Peoples Republic of China represents long term rival with considerable assets and great self confidence, derived in part from a highly distinctive and ancient culture.
India confronts a long term struggle to manage the dilemmas of the Muslim World and the associated dynamic of terrorism, that will demand of India sophisticated cultural awareness. Effective engagement in complex contingencies will demand from India and in depth knowledge of real and potential rivals. Strategy is not uniquely the product of culture, and culture itself is not lucid or unambiguous construct. But all strategy unfolds in cultural context, and cannot be fully and properly understood outside it.
One of the most important prerequisites for becoming a major soft power is to have “native ownership” of an ideology that can be used as a means of influence; that is, the ideology should be recognisable as a distinct and unique attribute of that particular country.
Pakistan’s ideology is based on Islamic ‘nationalism’ where it views itself as part of a greater ‘Ummah’, but is certainly not recognised by the members of the ‘Ummah’ as its leader. No one bothered when Pakistan refused to attend OIC Meeting. In other words, Pakistan does not have native ownership over its own ideology, which inevitably leads to Pakistan associating itself with other, more influential members of the ‘Ummah’ like Saudi Arabia and Iran, at the obvious expense of its own subcontinental origins.
India is fortunate to have large Hindu population which has the greatest tolerance. But for how long?
A favoured quote amongst Indians is that by Chinese ambassador and philosopher, Hu Shih: “India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20th centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border”; it was Indian Buddhism that helped shape Chinese civilisation. It is this age-old soft power that Modi started to tap into, whilst avoiding the hubris that comes with it. Humility in promoting Indian culture is particularly important in Asia where a lack of it has worked against India’s diplomats in the past.
Nye argued that “it is just as important to set the agenda and structure the situations in world politics as to get others to change in particular cases.” Soft power can help a nation set the agenda and alter the preferences of other nations before they come to the bargaining table. Its main instrument–public diplomacy–aims for milieu goals, the creation of an enabling political environment for a state’s foreign policy. However, as argued by Melissen, “public diplomacy cannot achieve its aims if it is inconsistent with a country’s foreign policy or military actions.” To foreign policy and military actions one must add domestic values, politics, and institutions. In order for soft power to succeed, a country’s message to the world cannot be at odds with the way it conducts itself at home and abroad. Hence comes the need for throwing away of secularism. It is an outdated concept. What is needed is strong action against anyone which strikes the national identity. Modi was right when it hit bases in Pakistan. It has done well to isolate China in world body. Modi has affirmed: “democracy” makes India a valuable partner for the world. Modi has consistently emphasised the importance of Indian democracy. The NDA government under AB Vajpayee then offered support to the US initiative to develop a “community of democracies” at the global level. Modi underscored spiritual linkages between India and Central Asia, marking a contrast with growing extremism around the world, suggesting that “the Islamic heritage of both India and Central Asia is defined by the highest ideals of Islam–knowledge, piety, compassion and welfare.” By emphasising India’s multicultural heritage, Modi undercut prevailing criticisms about his ideological leanings as a Hindu nationalist.
India is multicultural.

Multiculturalism can only include cultures that are multicultural themselves. If we include ideas/cultures/religions which are non-torelating, then they will slowly eat away everything else. I'm strongly against any abrahamic thoughts being let to survive in the subcontinent. Multiculturalism should only include ideas/religions/cultures which are multicultural themselves.

I think we should preach arab heritage, etc to the arabs, for the time being, but never practise it. You know, buffer it untill we are strong enough that we don't need to be pretentious.
 
The people who attacked the mosques at Christchurch are not New Zealanders, but Australians. Which means that they are foreigners who attacked nationals. The Muslim population in New Zealand is very small and never caused any problem there, the only criminal violence in New Zealand are biker gangs fighting each others, it's overall a remarkably peaceful country.

I believe they chose to attack that town because it is named Christchurch, and they didn't like that mosques existed in a town called Christchurch. This gives the attack a symbolic weight it wouldn't have had elsewhere. But it's not about New Zealand at all.
 
The people who attacked the mosques at Christchurch are not New Zealanders, but Australians. Which means that they are foreigners who attacked nationals. The Muslim population in New Zealand is very small and never caused any problem there, the only criminal violence in New Zealand are biker gangs fighting each others, it's overall a remarkably peaceful country.

I believe they chose to attack that town because it is named Christchurch, and they didn't like that mosques existed in a town called Christchurch. This gives the attack a symbolic weight it wouldn't have had elsewhere. But it's not about New Zealand at all.

The same thing went through my mind.

The motivation behind the attack was visceral hatred rather than furthering an agenda like the Mumbai or Paris attacks.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hellfire
The people who attacked the mosques at Christchurch are not New Zealanders, but Australians. Which means that they are foreigners who attacked nationals. The Muslim population in New Zealand is very small and never caused any problem there, the only criminal violence in New Zealand are biker gangs fighting each others, it's overall a remarkably peaceful country.

I believe they chose to attack that town because it is named Christchurch, and they didn't like that mosques existed in a town called Christchurch. This gives the attack a symbolic weight it wouldn't have had elsewhere. But it's not about New Zealand at all.


I have read the manifesto of this terrorist and also seen the video of his killings. The guy is a white supremacist, plain and simple. His hatred isn't originated from religious point of view, but entirely racial. He have equal contempt for every non white peoples in the world whether he is Muslim or not including by the way Indians from what i read from his manifesto.

He was planning to conduct shooting in Australia first, but he choosed to do it in New zealand becuase he can get more victims here. Also, there is a second Mosque nearby which he can dive to in a few minutes so he can conduct terror strike in two mosques. Thats why he chooses New zealand.
 
Religion is just a cultural markers for supremacists. It's not a question of faith or piety, and they are generally deeply ignorant of theology, it's just that they view it as "our religion" vs. "their religion". Attacking a mosque is a simple way to find where immigrants from the Middle-East are gathered.

There are doubtless countless other towns where you can find two or more mosques in close vicinity.
 
There is an oft repeated statement made by the followers of the faith of Islam, "Terror has no religion". It is especially more loud in the aftermath of any terror attack at any place in the world, where the perpetrator is the follower of Islam. While the statement by itself is true, one shall be hard put to deny the fact that while terror may, indeed, have no religion, the justification of terror in name of a religion (Islam), is not only rampant (by actions and words of the perpetrators) but also tacitly subscribed to by the so called 'innocent mute spectators' of the same religious denomination, who are complicit by their mere unwillingness to act against the perpetrators.

What we are seeing, in this specific act, is an increased outrage against the imposition of a so called 'secular' ideological mindset on societies, that by their very nature, are secular. This imposition in face of an ideology that encourages hate, intolerance of an alternative set of religious beliefs and encourages mute observation by it's own followers to acts of blatant terrorism in name of 'ummah' and 'threat to Islam', is an attack on the very fabric of the society that are secular.

Why does a nation, like India, when accused of 'growing intolerance' need to prove it's secular credentials on a day to day basis? Isn't the fact that the nation has the second largest population of followers of Islam a testimony to the fact itself? The argument that nations and societies who profess to be secular, need to prove themselves secular, is not only absurd, but also antithetical.

Let us take the example of an Islamic nation - that of UAE. One shall be hard pressed to call the nation secular and democratic by any stretch of imagination. The nation itself, describes itself as an Islamic nation, yet, we find churches, temples and gurudwaras in the Emirates, not only flourishing but also acknowledged as centers of harmony in the community. When UAE imposes restrictions on what one can do during the holy month of Ramzan, it also allows freedom within the framework of it's laws, for those of other religious denomination, to undertake activities otherwise prohibited by Islam. (example - licenses for purchase of Liquor for non-Muslims with designated shops catering to all brands and type of liquor).


Secularism of a nation has the best analogy in the ability of nation to achieve peaceful co-existence. A nation can achieve it's aims of non-violence and peaceful co-existence with all its neighbors and the comity of nations in general, when it has the strength to resort to violence and impose unacceptable costs on those who seek to undermine it's quest of same. Similarly, to achieve the aim of true secularism, a nation has to resolutely move to create an environment where the majority religion is guaranteed an atmosphere of security of it's own belief system. It is only once the State imposes conditions that ensure the survival and continuation of the major religious denomination, that the state can afford to provide conditions apt for the other religions to thrive.
Likewise the terrorist who killed 50 Muslims in New Zealand also justified his action based on Crusaders history or Christian narrative..
Your RSS justifies public lynching of Muslims on Hindu religious narrative..
 
Likewise the terrorist who killed 50 Muslims in New Zealand also justified his action based on Crusaders history or Christian narrative..

Isn't that antediluvian thought also the main platform amongst the religious fundamentalists arising from the lands of Saudi Arabia, who have, in fact, mainstreamed hatred in name of religion into something of a fashion trend, the more the barbarous the act, the more it trends?

Here, we have an example of an ideological thought process being created after a significant gap, but in the other case of "Islamic" terror, the thought process has never required a re-start. It has always been there.


Your RSS justifies public lynching of Muslims on Hindu religious narrative..


Can you cite that?
 
@safriz


The problem that I see as being existent is best summed up in the analogy as below.

Imagine you have a guest coming over to your place to stay. How would you feel if that guest comes into your house and expects the dining table to be laid in a certain way, food to be prepared in a specific way, your dress to prescribe to his/her way of life, and expects to have furniture of specific shade?

Do you expect a guest to adjust to your home/living conditions or are you expected to adjust your house & yourself to the whims and fancies of the guest?

Similarly, the problem and challenges that most secular societies face today, is not of intolerance to other religious beliefs, but that of imposition of an alien belief system in the societal fabric of their country, which pits that ideological system on a collision course with the society.

When secularism means acceptance and accommodation of ideas of diverse nature, you can not expect the society to remain a mute spectator as ideas that remain antithetical to it are imposed in certain segments of the population and the same segments expects to be treated as part of their own. They are not. You are an outlier, by any sane analysis.

If you are a devout Muslim, and I an atheist, will you permit me shelter beyond a specific time period in your house, when I will sit and ridicule God in your house, under your roof every second of my existence? Won't that check your patience and test your hospitality till one day you take me down?

In a country like New Zealand, where women are free, emancipated, wear bikini to the beach, the fundamental of an orthodox Islamic identity works to set the subset apart from the Society. An inflexible religious approach, which prevents integration within the host society, will always result in a clash.

Another analogy, will UAE not behead me if I was to wear a loincloth and roam around? When Muslims expects others visiting their land to integrate within their Society keeping in mind the sensitivities that exits, why is it 'Islamophobia' to expect the same Muslim, in France or US, to integrate in society keeping in mind the overall structure and norms of society and to adhere to them? If that is not acceptable, perfectly orthodox Muslim societies exist in Saudi Arabia, Sharjah, etc head over there. Who asks Muslims to move to countries whose fabric is against your religion?
 
In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries. The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs. Is there any nation which is secular as per this? Answer is NO.
In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else.
However, in India it means appeasement of Muslims and bashing of the majority. What is needed isaccptance and accomodation and no appeasement. The appeasement has caused biggest security problem for India.
 
Likewise the terrorist who killed 50 Muslims in New Zealand also justified his action based on Crusaders history or Christian narrative..
Your RSS justifies public lynching of Muslims on Hindu religious narrative..
I can confidently commit to the idea that removing religion from all aspects of life or at least substantially reducing its role is the code solution over the long term. I can assure you that a large group of Hindus will support it. Can you make the same claim from your side?
 
In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries. The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs. Is there any nation which is secular as per this? Answer is NO.
In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else.
However, in India it means appeasement of Muslims and bashing of the majority. What is needed isaccptance and accomodation and no appeasement. The appeasement has caused biggest security problem for India.

Oh wow. Now tell me in pursuit of this ideal, are you ready to equally shut down the privileges that Hindus enjoy -;take away religious holidays contributions and government subsidies 4 events like kumbh? This also means that a party the claims mandir wahin banega should be banned and leaders jAiled ?
 
I can confidently commit to the idea that removing religion from all aspects of life or at least substantially reducing its role is the code solution over the long term. I can assure you that a large group of Hindus will support it. Can you make the same claim from your side?

India's problems are different

Let the 2021 census happen

Then watch the Fun begin
 
@safriz


The problem that I see as being existent is best summed up in the analogy as below.

Imagine you have a guest coming over to your place to stay. How would you feel if that guest comes into your house and expects the dining table to be laid in a certain way, food to be prepared in a specific way, your dress to prescribe to his/her way of life, and expects to have furniture of specific shade?

Do you expect a guest to adjust to your home/living conditions or are you expected to adjust your house & yourself to the whims and fancies of the guest?

Similarly, the problem and challenges that most secular societies face today, is not of intolerance to other religious beliefs, but that of imposition of an alien belief system in the societal fabric of their country, which pits that ideological system on a collision course with the society.

When secularism means acceptance and accommodation of ideas of diverse nature, you can not expect the society to remain a mute spectator as ideas that remain antithetical to it are imposed in certain segments of the population and the same segments expects to be treated as part of their own. They are not. You are an outlier, by any sane analysis.

If you are a devout Muslim, and I an atheist, will you permit me shelter beyond a specific time period in your house, when I will sit and ridicule God in your house, under your roof every second of my existence? Won't that check your patience and test your hospitality till one day you take me down?

In a country like New Zealand, where women are free, emancipated, wear bikini to the beach, the fundamental of an orthodox Islamic identity works to set the subset apart from the Society. An inflexible religious approach, which prevents integration within the host society, will always result in a clash.

Another analogy, will UAE not behead me if I was to wear a loincloth and roam around? When Muslims expects others visiting their land to integrate within their Society keeping in mind the sensitivities that exits, why is it 'Islamophobia' to expect the same Muslim, in France or US, to integrate in society keeping in mind the overall structure and norms of society and to adhere to them? If that is not acceptable, perfectly orthodox Muslim societies exist in Saudi Arabia, Sharjah, etc head over there. Who asks Muslims to move to countries whose fabric is against your religion?
It's just that the analogy is wrong.
Immigrants are not guests. They are residents.
Plus I won't kill my guest if he asks plates to be set up in a certain way.
You need psychological help for your murderous mindset in which you think its OK to kill Muslims due to their lifestyle. Shame on you.