[DLQ2006]

By Ohmyrus

With increasing number of Muslims now living in western countries, particularly Europe, I have to ask this rude and politically incorrect question.

Will Muslim Immigration destroy western democracy?

To answer this question, we have to look at whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Democracy means rule by the people. It is a form of government designed for the rule of a nation state. Rule of the people in practice means rule decided by the ballot box. Implicit is the acceptance that the majority of the people will decide what laws will be passed through their representatives in Parliaments or Congress. It also assumes that the loyalty of the people will reside in the nation state and each citizen is expected to contribute to the welfare of their nation state. It means that the people must agree that the majority has the right to rule. Unfortunately, Islam has teachings that go against these conditions that make democracy difficult at best, impossible at worst.

The problem with Islam is that it teaches loyalty to the Muslim Ummah (nation) first. For them, the world is divided people of many religions who happened to live in different countries. For the rest of us, the world is divided into different countries who happened to have people of many religions.

That is why Muslims have set up an Organization of Islamic States. But there are no Organization of Christian or Buddhist or Hindu states. This loyalty to the Muslim Ummah results in world wide Muslim protests whenever any Muslim country is attacked by any non-Muslim nation, no matter how justified. When the Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden and refused to give him up after September 11, the Americans attacked.

Predictably, Muslims went livid with rage that fellow Muslims were attacked by a non-Muslims. They chose to believe in any conspiracy theory no matter how ridiculous to justify their reflex action of opposing non-Muslims attacking Muslims. Of course, it goes without saying that they don't shed a tear in sadness or wag a finger in anger when Muslims kill Muslims, no matter how brutal. What matters for them is who does the killing and not the reasons for war. Muslims have killed more Muslims than did the Israelis. But there was not a speck of sadness or anger from the Muslim world. This biasness is hard-wired in their minds by Islam.

Thus accepting Muslim immigrants means accepting people whose loyalty will not lie with the host country. If the numbers of Muslims are small, the problem is not serious. But with their high birth rates, a tipping point will be reached in which the viability of the western nation states will be compromised.

The second problem with Islam is that it does not separate mosque and state. This is because the Founder of Islam, Prophet Mohammed, was both spiritual and political ruler. He was both King and Pope rolled into one. After he died, his successors, called Caliphs, carried on this tradition. Prophet Mohammed also gave detailed instructions on the laws that his polity was to be ruled by. These are laws that devout Muslims believe come from God and must be obeyed.

This puts the devout Muslim on a collision course with modern democracy. For the devout Muslim, he must live under laws made by God and revealed through his Prophet. It is God and not man who must decide what laws should govern them. A democracy can only work if it is agreed that the majority has the right to pass laws through their elected representatives. The problem is that devout Muslims will view such laws that contradict Islamic law (also known as Shariah Law) as invalid or illegitimate.

By itself, this view is still not fatal for democracy. What makes it fatal is the propensity for Islam to generate violence. Even a cursory look at the Koran will reveal that violence is never far from the surface.

(Koran 8:39) And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

The commands are still valid today. What is meant by persecution? For some Muslims, this can mean something as harmless as the Danish cartoons! Thus even if a minority of Muslims use violence to fight for the triumph of Islamic law, democracy will be undermined. Compare their reaction to the cartoons with the Christian reaction to the screening of the Da Vinci Code and you will see how religious beliefs affect human society.

Muslims behave in this way today because they are imitating their Prophet Mohammed. The Founder of Islam was not tolerant of criticisms – like all medieval rulers. He killed many of his critics like Ka'ab and Asmah bin Marwan. See Ali Sina's article for further elaboration. (1)No doubt, Mohammed Bouyeri felt justified to murder Theo Van Gogh and I am sure that many Muslims would agree.

When we talk of democracy, we don't mean just one man one vote. It also must include freedom of speech and freedom to choose one's religion. But according to shariah law, it is death for blasphemy and apostasy. Thus once again, Islam is in conflict with the basic tenets of democracy. That is why Bush's project to transplant democracy to the Middle East is so difficult if not impossible.

So far, we have only looked at how Islam works in theory. How does it work in practice? Lets take a look at the empirical evidence. Of the 55 Muslim majority countries (not counting the Palestinian territory), only 5 are rated as Free by Freedom House. The rest are rated as Partly Free (24 countries) and Not Free (26 countries). That is a poor record. Islam has obviously produced a culture in which it is hard for democracy to take root.

The more Muslims seek to imitate Prophet Mohammed, the harder it is for democracy to function. He was after all a medieval ruler. (The British should be grateful that Henry VIII did not declare himself a Prophet and start a new religion, instead of simply breaking with Rome. Otherwise, they would have similar problems. Unfortunately for Muslims, Prophet Mohammed is seen as the perfect man and role model. Imagine the problems the British will have if they take Henry VIII as the role model.)

Yet western countries are admitting Muslim immigrants whose religious beliefs are not compatible with democracy and whose actual track record in adhering to the basic tenets of democracy is poor. Obviously, the more Muslims there are in a population that gives each person one vote, the more the country will be like what we have in an average Muslim majority country.

Western democracy is at the moment still viable but the Muslim minority is growing fast with its higher birth rate. Already, one quarter of French children are Muslim. By the end of this century, Europeans might be majority Muslim and speaking Arabic. Unless Muslims acquire new values and abandon old ones, democracy will not be viable at some point. But so far, Muslims are not assimilating or acquiring new values that make a liberal democracy possible. A survey taken in Britain for example shows that 40% of Muslims there want Shariah Law. (3) Another survey showed that only one quarter of British Muslims regard Britain as their country. As expected their primary loyalty is to the Muslim Ummah.

I predict that as the Muslim minority grows, social tensions will also grow. Ascerbating the tensions will be the economic disparity between Muslims and non-Muslims. This can be seen in a survey done by Essex University. (5) The survey states that Pakistanis and Bangla Deshis (who are mostly Muslims) are easily the poorest people in the UK with high levels of unemployment and large families.

It should be noted that Indians and Chinese have earnings on par with whites. Thus the under-achievement of Muslims in the UK cannot be due to racial discrimination. After all, the successful Indians (who are mostly Hindus) are racially very similar to Pakistanis and Bangla Deshis.

As I argued in my earlier articles, such as 'How Islam failed Muslims', Islam has impeded the progress of Muslims (8). I argued that Islam is a warrior's religion designed to facilitate Arab imperialism. While it can still produce brave warriors, it cannot produce the sort of people needed for a modern society.

Thus, the culture that Islam produces not only makes it difficult for democracy to work but also impedes economic development. As Muslim leaders like Dr Mahathir Mohammed and Pervez Musharaff have acknowledged, Muslims are amongst the most backwards people in the world (6). This would not be so bad if Muslims are prepared to assimilate and adopt new values. But from the surveys I cited, it appears that so far they are not willing to do that.

The problem is that Islam claims the Muslim Ummah to be the best nation. You can see this arrogant attitude in the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights. (7) If you see the preamble, you will see their self-image of themselves as 'the best nation':

Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind a universal and well-balanced civilization in which harmony is established between this life and the hereafter and knowledge is combined with faith; and the role that this Ummah should play to guide a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies and to provide solutions to the chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.

If Muslims form the best nation, then it follows that the rest of us are inferior to them. This is what Islam has taught them. That is why Muslims are unwilling to acquire new values or to assimilate when they move to the west. Thus we have a tragi-comic situation. Muslims migrate to the west to escape the dysfunctional societies that their Islamic culture created and still wish to replicate in the west the kind of societies they fled from. Yet the so-called best nation is amongst the most backwards on earth, as what Pervez Musharaff admitted.

In conclusion, let me say that I have written this essay not because I want to insult Muslims or make them angry but to make everybody think about the consequences of Muslim immigration to the west. Muslim immigration has created a serious long term problem and the west will have to face it. You can admit Hindus, Buddhists, Confuscianists and Christians without endangering western democracy and prosperity. But you face a serious risk with Muslims. The greater the percentage of Muslims in a country, the more that country will resemble Pakistan or the Middle East since they refuse to assimilate or acquire new values.

The politicians cannot be relied on to articulate much less solve this problem. This is the flaw in democracy. Since you have elections every four or five years, politicians do not have the luxury of thinking twenty to thirty years ahead. Yet some problems are of a long term nature and we have to think about them. Though my essay drew almost exclusively from the British experience, I believe that the experience is the same for most western countries.

Since I drew from the British experience, it is fitting that I end my essay with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill, a giant compared to the lilliputian politicians of today:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law, every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." - The River War.

The great man was and is still right about Islam – unfortunately. What even he did not foresee is that the civilization of Europe might yet fall.


Faith Freedom International

[The Godfather]

DLQ, are you willing to back up the totality of this cut-paste?

Why don't more forumites write their own thoughts themselves, and if they do, it's not more than half a paragraph?

This is why the P/W-L is so unappealing to me. It is just a bunch of copy-pastes.

[PB2K]

it's a big collection of poor misjudgements about islam. not worth reading really because it's all too similar to the cliche stories we've read before.

[marden]

Will Muslim Immigration destroy Western Democracy?

I don't know if anything can really stop it. But we should try.

[Kerrigan]

I actually agree with marden's assessment. The west is inherently weak, and it is doomed to become crap, one way or another.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I actually agree with marden's assessment. The west is inherently weak, and it is doomed to become crap, one way or another.

Sad but that's the way it looks. Although others have bet against the USA and they lost their bet. (See Japan pre-December 7, 1941)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Could you be a little more explicit about who's betting against the USA, and how please? Thanks. I must've gotten lost between the Japanese Pearl Harbour attack and the Muslim immigration comparison.

Thanks again,
greg

[paul w]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

DLQ, are you willing to back up the totality of this cut-paste?

Why don't more forumites write their own thoughts themselves, and if they do, it's not more than half a paragraph?

This is why the P/W-L is so unappealing to me. It is just a bunch of copy-pastes.

Exactly. Now some have said that people only complain when they don't agree with the material sourced.

Honestly, how would I know since I never bother to read any of it?

[Kr0nos]

Absolutely not.

Islam has nothing that can compete with western liberalism and free thought. Long before it will hold any relevant positions of power in Europe or the US it will have either destroyed itself, or it'll be watered down to the point of non-existence.

I am still waiting for the first "muslim" politician to try to pass a law favoring religious fundamentalism over democratic principles in a western country. Instant civil war.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Absolutely not.

Islam has nothing that can compete with western liberalism and free thought. Long before it will hold any relevant positions of power in Europe or the US it will have either destroyed itself, or it'll be watered down to the point of non-existence.

I am still waiting for the first "muslim" politician to try to pass a law favoring religious fundamentalism over democratic principles in a western country. Instant civil war.

I wouldn't say "instant civil war" It just wouldn't become law.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I wouldn't say "instant civil war" It just wouldn't become law.

But what happens when majority of the people with voting power in the nation are muslim ?

[Atheist]

I grew up in Dearborn, MI which has one of the largest Muslim populations in the U.S. (I'm not Muslim). I never once met a Muslim that sympathised with the radicals. They were no different than the European immigrants from my grandparents generation. Immensely proud to be Americans. Many of my friends parents were immigrants... they came for the same reason all other immigrants come. They wanted a better life for their children.

If you want to worry about religious fundamentalists unduly influencing our government... well... I think you know where I'm going with that...

[Hawkeye_a]

Well, what do you have to say about whats going on in the UK and France with the muslim populations there ?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Well, what do you have to say about whats going on in the UK and France with the muslim populations there ?

I don't live there... so I don't really care

[Hawkeye_a]

The thing is..... Muslims migrate to western nations, and eventually get the right to vote as free citizens. MOST muslim nations in the world are not democracies, so while they hide behind that shield of tyrany, no matter how many non-msulims reside there, they will always be treated as second class citizens. case in point: the state of christians, Jews, etc, in nations with Muslim governments.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Atheist

I grew up in Dearborn, MI which has one of the largest Muslim populations in the U.S. (I'm not Muslim). I never once met a Muslim that sympathised with the radicals. They were no different than the European immigrants from my grandparents generation. Immensely proud to be Americans. Many of my friends parents were immigrants... they came for the same reason all other immigrants come. They wanted a better life for their children.

If you want to worry about religious fundamentalists unduly influencing our government... well... I think you know where I'm going with that...

Perhaps you aren't still in Dearborn, but Muslims demonstrated in support of the radicals there.

In 2004, Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, held an anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration. Protestors carried a large model of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque and waved signs bearing slogans such as “US Hands Off Muslim Land.” But the most arresting image was of a Muslim woman carrying a large sign featuring the face of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. There were two people in the crowd carrying pictures of Khomeini, and that wasn't the only radical image or sign.

As Khomeini himself put it: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.”

It is unlikely that the protestor knew that in 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared, according to Amir Taheri, that “the very concept of human rights was ‘a Judeo-Christian invention’ and inadmissible in Islam. . . . According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s ‘most despicable sins’ was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I actually agree with marden's assessment. The west is inherently weak, and it is doomed to become crap, one way or another.

One can hope. The East has better food and better women.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Nicko

One can hope. The East has better food and better women.

That's true, I wouldn't mind putting a bag over my girlfriend's head and shutting her inside to give me blowjobs and clean up my messes...

Every cloud has a silver lining!

[Millennium]

I wouldn't say that the West is inherently weak. It has certainly weakened over the past couple of generations, and I believe that this is mostly because both sides of the political spectrum have a very selective memory of what allowed the West to become so strong in the first place. No one party has a monopoly on these values, nor is any party really all that much better than the others if push comes to shove. They've all thrown away things they don't like, trying to rebuild systems around their particular pet values which all have a kernel of truth to them, but none of which could ultimately be sustained. I suppose you could call this a form of conservatism -and truth be told, that's exactly what it is- but those who currently call themselves 'conservatives' would barely recognize it (though neither would those who currently call themselves 'liberals').

But for all this weakness and -dare I say it- decadence, the West isn't beyond salvage. It just needs a reminder of how it got to where it is, and neither liberals nor conservatives will rejoice when and if that reminder comes.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Millennium

But for all this weakness and -dare I say it- decadence, the West isn't beyond salvage. It just needs a reminder of how it got to where it is, and neither liberals nor conservatives will rejoice when and if that reminder comes.

Oh it won't be so bad, just learn chinese

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Oh it won't be so bad, just learn chinese

Well first someone else is gonna have to do it. Then China can copy that idea, but do it cheaper.

[lpkmckenna]

Will Muslim Immigration destroy Western Democracy?

No, as long as we maintain the separation of church and state. A liberal society can accommodate any viewpoint. Muslim immigrants are no more a threat than Marxist professors or Amish communities or Scientologists or fundamentalists or any other peculiar group.

A bigger threat than any would be an over-reaction (by the expected reactionaries), leading to less freedom and more state intrusion.

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Islam has nothing that can compete with western liberalism and free thought. Long before it will hold any relevant positions of power in Europe or the US it will have either destroyed itself, or it'll be watered down to the point of non-existence.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Wiskedjak]

Is Islam incompatible with democracy? Absolutely. However, it's no more incompatible with democracy than any other religion.

This is not the question you are really asking. What I think you are actually curious about is "will a Muslim citizen vote for a government based on Islamic principles or will they vote for the Christian principles that Western governments have traditionally been based upon?"

[OreoCookie]

This is all FUD: it's Western culture that has proven to be more successful economically and scientifically. Reverting from these principles (and one of them is secularism) will have a detrimental effect on society.

I'm also not sure why you Americans are actually afraid of Muslim immigrants: it's the Hispanics who will dominate American politics in a few decades, turning America into a Catholic country

Regarding the original question, predominantly Muslim countries (well, the richer ones) enjoy the fruits of Western science already -- it's a fruit from the poisonous tree. It's pretty much like this endless `conservatives vs. liberals' rhetoric: conservatives change, too, over the course of time (just slower). People who fear hordes of Islamists hijacking their countries will certainly be disappointed, those won't be the major issues we'll be facing in the course of the 21st century. The rise of China and India will have a much more profound effect than immigration by Muslims.

[voodoo]

When the Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden and refused to give him up after September 11, the Americans attacked.

Historical revisionism anyone.

Anyway, rule 8 violation: reported.

V

[Spliffdaddy]

I think Western Democracy will probably destroy Muslims.

Mostly because nothing else has been able to resist its influence.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think Western Democracy will probably destroy Muslims.

Mostly because nothing else has been able to resist its influence.

And here I agree with you wholeheartedly. Why? Because the Islamic community has, thus far, not offered anything substantial - in fact, I don't think it's offered anything at all - to warrant humanity "choosing it" over Western Democracy.

When comparing previous ideological battles, the opposing side had a coherent set of arguments and/or differences in opposition to Western Democracy, and in at least some respects a recognizable proportion of this opposition had legitimate complaints/alternatives. (This can be seen with both Fascism and Communism.)

I not believe that Islam or the Muslim community have anything resembling a coherent "ideology." I tend to agree with Samuel Huntington - this is a clash of cultures more than anything else, but I believe it is often a clash of cultures spurred by economic rivalry and exploitation, a lá Fukuyama's perspective.

Anyways, yeah. The point: I agree with Spliffdaddy on this, and his redhead stance. That is agreeing with Spliffdaddy on at least two subjects. Heavenly bodies, rejoice.

greg

[ink]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I think Western Democracy will probably destroy Muslims.

Mostly because nothing else has been able to resist its influence.

That's it, in a nutshell. Something about a liberal, free society lends itself to superior technology. I'm not exactly certain of the cause, but I could speculate that the brightest minds would rather live in such a society than in a supressive one. Almost all the technology that the Islamic states currently have is from western science, including the nuclear weapons that Iran is still trying to figure out. In graduate school, one of the brightest guys there was from Iran. He decided to not return to the homeland after graduating.

Although, it would be entertaining to see the so-called Islamofacists try a door-to-door takeover of Utah, Idaho or Montana. I belive that guns outnumber people here.

[vmarks]

That isn't to say that people who position themselves to speak for Islam aren't threatening to destroy Western Democracy:

Omar Ahmad
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Ibrahim Hooper
CAIR Spokesperson
"CAIR does not support these groups publicly."
(Hooper comments on CAIR's record of supporting Hamas,
Hezbullah and other official terrorist groups)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

[ink]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I tend to agree with Samuel Huntington - this is a clash of cultures more than anything else, but I believe it is often a clash of cultures spurred by economic rivalry and exploitation, a lá Fukuyama's perspective.

And the sooner western countries stop fueling that repressive economic engine, the better (get off oil).

We can do it, if we only choose leaders that have the cajones to lead...

[vmarks]

That the Western World has developed into a Free society is no accident. It took decades of vigilance and effort.

I think it is detrimental to ignore those who publicly threaten that Free society even if we agree there's nothing they offer.

I think it is detrimental to presume that today's freedom to travel, freedom to speak, freedom to worship will simply always be, when people have no fear or reservation to publicly claim they will overcome those freedoms.

[ink]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I think it is detrimental to presume that today's freedom to travel, freedom to speak, freedom to worship will simply always be, when people have no fear or reservation to publicly claim they will overcome those freedoms.

A fair point, but where does the line between paranoia and actual threat lie?

Many conservatives have convinced themselves that we are already embroiled in world war 3. A growing number of people disagree with that assesment and even belive that we're creating the next world war by "preventing" it.

It's been an anti-immigrant year. It seems to be playing well on the fears of voters, so.... I agree that Muslims should integrate into the culture of their new countries. I agree that face coverings should be removed at work and during ID photos. I would expect to cover my head if I were to ever immigrate to an Islamic state (not on my to-do list). But I see these as minor disagreements, and not the beginnings of the End of The West.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Well, what do you have to say about whats going on in the UK and France with the muslim populations there ?

Muslim communities in the US are, in general, completely different from those in Europe. Their communities are generally well integrated, educated, and somewhat affluent.

I'm sorry, but complaining about Muslim immigration just smacks of xenophobia. They come here for the same reasons as everyone else.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

When comparing previous ideological battles, the opposing side had a coherent set of arguments and/or differences in opposition to Western Democracy, and in at least some respects a recognizable proportion of this opposition had legitimate complaints/alternatives. (This can be seen with both Fascism and Communism.)

Coherent arguments? Legitimate complaints?

Islam is just another religion. It's no more or less irrational than any other religion.

[vmarks]

I don't think those things are the 'End of the West', but I do think some other recent events aren't really positive signs either:

WorldNetDaily: 'Five pillars of Islam' taught in public school where public school students were encouraged to take on Muslim dress and recite the pillars of the faith, tantamount to converting to Islam.

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils | the Daily Mail where a school girl is arrested for not studying with some Muslim students because they didn't speak English.

Non-Muslim students at Islamic school forced to wear headscarves | the Daily Mail where non-Muslim female students will be forced to wear headscarves.

Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross | the Daily Mail where a flight attended for British Airways can wear the hijab, but may not wear a cross.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Absolutely not.

Islam has nothing that can compete with western liberalism and free thought. Long before it will hold any relevant positions of power in Europe or the US it will have either destroyed itself, or it'll be watered down to the point of non-existence.

I am still waiting for the first "muslim" politician to try to pass a law favoring religious fundamentalism over democratic principles in a western country. Instant civil war.

It won't take a Muslim politician. All it will take is large muslim voting blocks that the politicians cater to. What about in 100 years from now? 10 years ago, I would have never thought that Great Britain would be having the kinds of things happening there that they are dealing with now. While many of the people there seem to be quite pissed off about it, the politicians just keep pandering to the Muslim immigrants.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by itai195

Muslim communities in the US are, in general, completely different from those in Europe. Their communities are generally well integrated, educated, and somewhat affluent.

I'm sorry, but complaining about Muslim immigration just smacks of xenophobia. They come here for the same reasons as everyone else.

Please re-read my post about one of the protests by Muslims in Dearborn Michigan.

Please revisit the case of Sami Al-Arian, who admitted to raising money for terrorists.

Please look at the two CAIR leaders convicted of supporting terrorism, one a leader in the national org, and one the founder of the Texas chapter.

Consider the possibility America's Muslims aren't as different as you may have thought.

Sure, some of them are. But then again, some of them are actively agitating against America.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

DLQ, are you willing to back up the totality of this cut-paste?

Why don't more forumites write their own thoughts themselves, and if they do, it's not more than half a paragraph?

This is why the P/W-L is so unappealing to me. It is just a bunch of copy-pastes.

This is the first essay that I have copied and pasted and I did so as the basis for a discussion about the issue. My other posts have been my own thoughts and funny that you would characterize them as "not more than half a page" since I often get criticized for a lack of brevity.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Consider the possibility America's Muslims aren't as different as you may have thought.

Sure, some of them are. But then again, some of them are actively agitating against America.

I don't doubt that some of the people we've let in are radicals, and they should be deported. But that does not taint every Muslim who immigrates into this country.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Coherent arguments? Legitimate complaints?

Islam is just another religion. It's no more or less irrational than any other religion.

What exactly is your complaint with these two statements again?

I don't think anybody here will disagree that both fascism and communism did have some valid complaints again Western capitalist free-market democracy. I think many of these complaints have often been on trial throughout the past 50 years. The free market is often a sharp sword that cuts both ways, and safety nets can be few and far between; the lack of strong leadership and love of the state is an issue that is even cropping up in this very thread, I would imagine. Western capitalist democracy isn't perfect, and I don't see how anyone can think that it is (Winston Churchill himself famously said "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"). Nevertheless, most people seem to think that it works better than everything else so far, and especially the implementations of those other government forms that we've seen.

And I fail to see how your statement on Islam relates to my argument. I know that Islam is "just another religion" - even though it is usually significantly tied closer to the State than in Western countries. I know it's no more irrational than any other religion - although it must be said that it has found itself in armed conflict with every religion on its borders, and it is easily interpreted by followers as having an aggressive, militant bent. My point was that as a religion Islam has not presented any valid ideology which can challenge the West as both communism and fascism did. (I'll leave the debate over whether those two constitute religions to a later day. )

greg

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I don't think anybody here will disagree that both fascism and communism did have some valid complaints again Western capitalist free-market democracy.

Wrong. I emphatically disagree.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

And I fail to see how your statement on Islam relates to my argument.

Yes, the failure is yours. My point is: Islam is no more a threat to liberal democracy than any other religion.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I don't think those things are the 'End of the West', but I do think some other recent events aren't really positive signs either:

WorldNetDaily: 'Five pillars of Islam' taught in public school where public school students were encouraged to take on Muslim dress and recite the pillars of the faith, tantamount to converting to Islam.

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils | the Daily Mail where a school girl is arrested for not studying with some Muslim students because they didn't speak English.

Non-Muslim students at Islamic school forced to wear headscarves | the Daily Mail where non-Muslim female students will be forced to wear headscarves.

Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross | the Daily Mail where a flight attended for British Airways can wear the hijab, but may not wear a cross.

And these stories represent a small fraction of the clash that is occuring between Muslim immigrants and the citizens of their host countries. The stories coming out of Great Britain on a daily basis are not encouraging that it will remain a bastion of western civilization.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Wrong. I emphatically disagree.

Really? You think that liberal free-market democracy is perfect? I think it's a great system, but I'll be the first to say it has its problems. I think democratic voters have also agreed with me in some respects, if you consider the rise of the socialist state in the past 50 years (yes, in America as well as perhaps moreso in Canada and some European nations). I fully agree that those two larger ideologies did not compete as a whole, but I'd like to see a good argument that some of their specific points against specific areas of Western democracy weren't valid.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Yes, the failure is yours. My point is: Islam is no more a threat to liberal democracy than any other religion.

Well I agree that it isn't a threat, but to say "than any other religion" just seems silly and naive to me. Huntington (also famously) noted that "Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Phillipines. Islam has bloody borders." Clearly the militant and often-violent method of expansion Islam exhibits makes it more "dangerous" than other, say, less-agressive religions, as its religious extremists have shown us in the past decade.

As well, Huntington used the concept of "culture" as the future of conflict, ie. the culture clash between Muslim countries and the cultures around it. Viewed in that standpoint, Islam may be considered more dangerous than other religions which do not have a unified or shared culture set.

greg

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Wrong. I emphatically disagree.


Yes, the failure is yours. My point is: Islam is no more a threat to liberal democracy than any other religion.

Then how do you explain what we see when we look at the world today? Which religion is it that demands its women cover their faces and entire bodies? And I don't buy the argument that this type of covering up is a liberating practice for women. I would be more open to that idea if they didn't get beat up for not wearing one. Or bullied into wearing one by being branded as a whore and unworthy if they don't. Or brain-washed from birth that good muslim women wear them.

Which religion is it that
--subjugates women?
--subjugates non-muslims?
--does not allow its women to marry outside of their faith?
--calls for execution as the punishment for leaving the religion?
-- calls for execution of its members who dare to even criticize it?
--calls for the execution of others that dare to criticize Islam?
--calls for girls and women to be stoned to death for adultry, showing too much ankle, dating the wrong boy, ect?
--promises 72 virgins to martyrs?
--doesn't give women the same right it does men to testify in court?
-- doesn't give women the same right in choosing whether or not to work and what profession to choose?
--chants death to those who are not members of their religion?

Unless you do not see these types of inequalities as being incompatible with and a threat to a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy is not just about the one vote per person where majority rules. It is also about freedom and not just for men.

[DLQ2006]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils | the Daily Mail where a school girl is arrested for not studying with some Muslim students because they didn't speak English.

Great Britain, the country that in 1940, held the line for the whole world and showed such bravery up against the powers of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, now thinks it's a good idea to just give away its country.

I'll save some of those tears for my own country, since we are on the same path and all of those in power are either too short sighted, delusional, or greedy to care.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

…While many of the people there seem to be quite pissed off about it, the politicians just keep pandering to the Muslim immigrants.

That's such BS.

Has it occured to you that immigrant Muslims aren't this coherent group with a social and political agenda? Do you honestly believe that just because somebody is a Muslim, they automatically are somebody interested in establishing a Muslim society or even a caliphate?

Why do you think they came to a Western country in the first place?

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by itai195

I don't doubt that some of the people we've let in are radicals, and they should be deported. But that does not taint every Muslim who immigrates into this country.

Of course it doesnt. Like ive said before, i have many Muslim friends, and are very well integrated into "western" societies....that is tto say they get along very well with non-muslims, and leave their dogma in their own homes.

The point here is.... if given the opportunity to vote for a government that seperates itself from religion vs an islamic-government, i'm almost certain that they would vote for the latter. Thats the problem. Living in the middle east, no matter how peaceful/civilized some of the muslims are, when the rubber hits the road, they are muslims first and friends second.

Living in a free nation (Australia), i can respect the fact that their religion comes first. The problem arises when that same choice/respect is afforded to non-muslims. And i hope the free world will not bend to the pressures of Islam.

I suggest the free world make bi-lateral immigration policies with Muslim countries. No Saudi citizen will be granted US citizenship, until Saudi accept foreign non-muslims as citizens, etc. If equality is what we are looking for, this is the way to keep it fair. If equality is what they are looking for, they will comply. Just my opinion.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I don't think those things are the 'End of the West', but I do think some other recent events aren't really positive signs either:

WorldNetDaily: 'Five pillars of Islam' taught in public school where public school students were encouraged to take on Muslim dress and recite the pillars of the faith, tantamount to converting to Islam.

Schoolgirl arrested for refusing to study with non-English pupils | the Daily Mail where a school girl is arrested for not studying with some Muslim students because they didn't speak English.

Non-Muslim students at Islamic school forced to wear headscarves | the Daily Mail where non-Muslim female students will be forced to wear headscarves.

Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross | the Daily Mail where a flight attended for British Airways can wear the hijab, but may not wear a cross.

Hmmmm lets see here:

First story is from a neoconservative site, nuff said.

Second story the school girl in question was clearly being racist, not related to anything remotely muslim.

Third story: again about uniforms. I went to private schools growing up and had to wear a tie, did I protest about it? no.

Forth Story: uniform violation--- again, how is that related to muslims?

Honestly vmarks, you need to try harder.

[Kevin]

Nicko um, your "descriptions" of those articles are waaaaaaaaaay off base.

I suggest you go back and read them again.

[red rocket]

As I was planning on posting about it, anyway, I shall now offer my comments regarding the display of religious symbols in public.

1. Some Christian woman wants to wear a crucifix over her British Airways uniform, to "demonstrate her faith."

I am opposed to that, and she should be sacked. Unless I'm flying to the Vatican or with AirJesus, there is no reason why I should be exposed to Christian propaganda by airline staff.

That said, I don't want to see them wearing yarmulkes or hijabs, either, anything that interferes with the uniform is inappropriate.

2. Some teaching assistant insists on wearing a veil in class. Again, I find it perfectly right that she should be sacked. Children should not be exposed to such nonsense in a learning environment.

3. I have nothing against people covering up their faces in public, but the right should extend to everyone. If I want to dress like a bloody ninja, I shouldn't have to change my sex and religion for the privilege.

4. Look at this crap:

Originally Posted by Ruth Kelly

Kelly appeals to all faiths over extremism
10.19, Mon Oct 16 2006

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly is appealing for help in rooting out Islamic extremist hot spots across the country.

Ms Kelly will urge council bosses to consider whether they are doing enough to stop people being brainwashed in schools, colleges and universities.

She will insist it is the biggest security issue everyone in the UK faces and will call on Muslims to find a "new level" as she seeks to draw a line under increasingly bitter religious rows.

"In major parts of Britain the new extremism we're facing is the single biggest security issue for local communities," she will say.

"This is not just a problem for Muslim communities. The far right is still with us, still poisonous, still trying to create and exploit divisions. Extremism is an issue for all of us. We all must play our part in responding to it."

"The world has changed since September 11 and 7/7. The Government has had to change and respond to that, and we appeal to local authorities to do the same."

Ms Kelly's comments come after nearly two weeks in which the simmering row over religious tensions has gradually reached boiling point.

A Muslim teaching assistant's refusal to remove her veil became the focal point yesterday for increasingly bitter exchanges between senior politicians and Muslim groups.

The Government's race minister demanded 24-year-old Aishah Azmi - already suspended - be sacked, accusing her of "denying the right of children to a full education".

Oh, the irony. An Opus Dei member complaining about religious extremism. No, wait, she's only bitching about Muslim extremism.

4. Conclusion: The brainwashing must stop. Christian, Islamic, and otherwise. We must not give up our secular society to these unenlightened theist maniacs.