Why the “They Don’t Integrate” Argument Falls Apart
Every few months, familiar anxiety gets dusted off and circulated through newspapers, political debates, and online comment sections: “Muslims don’t integrate.” The claim is that they live in isolated enclaves, reject national values, and pose a cultural threat to Western society.
This argument has become central to nationalist rhetoric in many Western countries. It is usually framed as a concern for social cohesion. But when scrutinized, it often masks a deeper discomfort with diversity itself.
Integration is not a one-way obligation. The standard argument assumes integration is something immigrants must do on their own. It ignores the reality that integration requires mutual openness. Host societies must provide access to housing, jobs, and public services without discrimination. When those systems fail, it is dishonest to turn around and accuse communities of refusing to integrate.
Some would say immigrants bear a more substantial burden when adapting since they choose to enter a new country. “Surely, they should accept local customs and values,” they would say.
That sounds fair until you ask what is meant by “customs and values.” If it refers to obeying the law and respecting others, then yes, of course. But if it means giving up religious clothing, food, or family structure, then the expectation crosses into forced assimilation.
Muslims are not a monolith. The idea that Muslims, as a group, resist integration ignores how diverse Muslim communities actually are. There are professionals and laborers, immigrants and natives. Many are deeply involved in civic life, as teachers, entrepreneurs, doctors, and even elected officials. Yet, they are all subject to the same bigotry.
Critics often point to visual signs of non-integration. They mention areas with Arabic signage, halal butcheries, or women wearing the niqab.[1] To them, this is evidence of cultural separation. However, cultural markers are not the same as social isolation. Jewish, Hindu, and Eastern Orthodox communities also retain visible traditions. These communities are often seen as adding to the social fabric. The objection to Muslim visibility suggests the issue is not a lack of integration but discomfort with Islam itself.
The term “integration” is vague and inconsistent. Those who complain about Muslim integration rarely define what they mean. Is it about speaking the national language? Is it about attending church? Drinking alcohol? Listening to pop music? Integration has no fixed definition, and critics often shift its meaning to fit their grievances.
Some say that the lack of intermarriage, or the establishment of Islamic schools and community centers, is a sign that Muslims prefer separation. Yet again, we must ask why this same logic is not applied to other religious or ethnic groups. Do Christian homeschooling families face this scrutiny? Are Chinatowns seen as parallel societies? Integration should mean contributing to society while maintaining the right to cultural and religious distinctiveness. If difference is the problem, then the objection is not about integration at all.
Structural exclusion is mistaken for self-isolation. When Muslim communities live in concentrated neighborhoods or build their own schools and mosques, critics interpret it as a refusal to integrate. But this overlooks the structural barriers that drive those very outcomes. Job discrimination, unequal policing, media scapegoating, and exclusion from mainstream politics all make it harder for people to feel accepted.
Critics would maintain that people should try harder to be part of the mainstream, regardless of obstacles. However, that is easy to say from a position of comfort. When people are told their clothes are suspicious, their food smells foreign, their prayers are threatening, and their presence is resented, what exactly is the “mainstream” they are being asked to join? Real integration is not about blending in perfectly. It is about participating while being respected for who you are.
No community is immune to fringe elements. The mistake is to take the actions of a small minority and treat them as representatives. When white nationalist attacks occur, no one demands that white Christians “integrate better.” Muslims should be held accountable as individuals, not as a collective suspect class.
Cultural pluralism is not a threat. Muslims are not the first group to be told they don’t belong. The Irish were once seen as unassimilable. So were Jews. So were Italians. In every generation, visible minorities have been accused of diluting the nation. Those same groups are absorbed into the mainstream and celebrated over time.
In conclusion, the claim that Muslims don’t integrate is not only inaccurate but dishonest. It ignores the many that are already integrated in every meaningful sense of the word. And it imposes on Muslims a demand for conformity that is not expected of others. Blaming Muslims for societal anxiety while refusing to address exclusion, racism, and institutional failures is not a solution. It is a deflection. Muslims do not need to apologize for being different. The rest of society must decide whether it truly believes in diversity, or only in sameness, wearing different clothes.