Ida -
When you read what you describe here, I share your concern entirely. But at the same time, I cannot help thinking that within your alarm there also lies something else - a basic assumption that this can be bent, adapted and relativised - that it is simply about pedagogy and mutual accommodation.
But everything you experienced in that classroom is not a question of misunderstood norms.
It IS the norm.
For a totalitarian political law-religion.
And it is there, I think, the core of the problem arises.
You are surprised because you in no way stand on the same premise as the young man. But he stands on his.
And his premise is COMPLETELY coherent.
The Quran stands above the Constitution
Men and women must not touch each other
Society must be shaped according to the law-religion, not the other way around
Moderate Muslims are - in his logic - sinners
This is not extremism.
It is ORTHODOXY.
It is the literal interpretation that for 1,400 years has been the starting point in most of the Islamic world. And you really should understand this now - he does NOT stand in opposition to his tradition - he stands in CONTINUATION of it.
What you call "the rabid interpretation" is in large parts of the world simply normal. That is. Completely "normal" in every way, just as everything you think of as "normal about Denmark's arrangement".
And therefore the question does not become -
How do we get him to meet us? (for he cannot. Faith - the basic premise for being Human at all - does not permit it. God's Word cannot be changed, interpreted or diluted.)
But -
Why do we expect him to even want to?
Because you yourself hit the nail on the head when you write that the young are moving away from integration. Away from their parents' attempts to adapt and away from the reciprocity you long for.
And - and this is important to understand - they do not do this out of ill will. They do it because that is how a totalitarian faith and law system functions.
It does not permit integration. It permits submission or parallelism. It does not permit negotiation or change.
So yes, however tedious it is to acknowledge, the young man is actually right in his reading.
And it is precisely that which makes the whole thing so infinitely serious.
There is a deep and insurmountable incompatibility between two civilisational worldviews here -
The Western - has the freedom of the individual, the equality of the sexes, secularity, the sovereignty of democratic law and mutual respect between citizens.
The Islamic law system, as he (and large parts of the world) understands it - God's law stands above man's, women and men must not associate equally, the believer owes society nothing but God everything and the State MUST bow to religion.
A bridge cannot be built between these two without one of them giving in.
And here is the tedious truth we in the West have refused to say aloud for far too long -
If the bridge is to be built, it has - according to the politically correct, slightly vain and frightened types - always been Western civilisation that is expected to compromise.
On the handshake.
On sport.
On shared space.
On equality.
On the right to be a citizen BEFORE religious identity.
We have seen it happen - and it is happening right before our eyes.
So perhaps the time has come for you - and everyone working politically with integration - to ask the question that should have been asked 25 years ago.
What if integration does not fail, but is simply impossible when the starting point is a law system that cannot be integrated without ceasing to be itself?
Because this is not a question of goodwill.
Not a question of pedagogy.
And not a question of dialogue.
It is a question of civilisation. Of worldviews. Of God!
And civilisational encounters are not decided by intentions - but by the gravity within them.
Which system, which view of life, which world order is strongest, clearest, most uncompromising?
That is what is unfolding in Danish classrooms now - and THAT is what we invite our own young people to stand in, navigate and orient themselves within, because the adults over the past 3 decades were too cowardly, naive, stupid and foolishly good.
But time is running out for "Mr. It'll-Be-Fine".
It is time to take what you experience deeply, deeply, deeply seriously. Sit down and understand how deeply and invasively the law-religion's faith sets itself on the lens within Man and his society. It is low-level programming of the self. And we even allow radicalised outsiders to come here and teach it. Digging the hole deeper.
What we face is in its essence not an integration problem. But a historical and civilisational problem.
Because either -
1) the West holds fast to its values, its culture, its equality, its openness and its secularity - and insists that this is the foundation for being here.
or else
2) we gradually surrender the space to those who are more uncompromising than us.
You actually describe the result quite well yourself - The most fundamentalist voice won the room. It always does, when its opponents do not believe in their own culture with the same force.
And that is where the battle stands.
Not between people.
But between worldviews.
And I truly hope you take the next step and ask yourself -
What does it require of us as a society to stand firm on what has made Denmark Denmark?
Because that is where the key lies.
