Another absurd post. So now you are claiming that a majority of Muslims in the US/UK/Canada etc were not well off in their own countries and hence are doing poorly in their adopted countries ?
And you still haven't explained the correlation between Hindus prospering in India (where they are a majority) and Hindus prospering in US/UK/Canada despite being minorities.
Can you give an example of a Muslim democracy (I know thats an oxymoron :)) thats doing better than India in terms of socio-economic indicators.
First of all, you dont know what this debate is about. Fish curry was trying to imply that Muslims are ALL lagginf behind Hindus.
He cited , however inaccurately, Muslims in UK and Europe.
The common understadning is that these people were lower and middle class people who migrated to those countries. In Birmingham for example, which has a very large Pakistani population, the Pakistanis there initially worked as facotry labor.
As for Muslims in Canada and US, they prove you wrong. Muslims in some foreign countries have done relatively well.
Regradless, this is irrelevant. The larger question is whether Muslims, all 1.5 Billion of them are lagging behind the 500 million or so Hindus in world.
Learn to read what your trying to debate.
I never said that Hindus prosper in India.
1. Indians that have migrated have tended to be relatively well educated.
2. Fich curry made the absurd point, that ALL Muslims are laggng behind Muslims. To prove this he used the expat communities in England and Europe.
My point was that first, you cant use these groups to extrapolate a conclusion for ALL Muslims.
Second, that Hindus have NOT performed better then Musl9ms.
As an example, I cited Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, and Egypt. All of whom have much stronger social and economic indicators then India...
So if Muslims are so backwards, why are Muslim countries doing so much better then Hindu India?!?!