VDemosthenes:

Muslims do not share one culture and one language. The Malays of Indonesia and Malaysia do not share the same culture as the Arabs, Persians, etc. They also don't speak the same language[s]. And we are not asking them to give up their language, but only to learn ours [the least they could do, and I would expect them to expect the same of me if I moved to their homeland[s]]. And re culture change, if you plan on moving to a secular democracy founded on certain principles, then you need to expect to have to live according to those certain principles and otherwise follow the rules of the secular democracy game [everything else they can keep].

We otherwise don't allow immigration so that the immigrants can found their own little apartheid homeland in our nation.

Lastly, re tolerance, if you want to see growth of the same, then please go to the Muslim world and prod them along. As bad as some Muslims might find suspicious America[ns] to be, they enjoy a far better position in our society than the native Copts do in Egypt [think forced conversion, murder, and rape], the Assyro-Chaldean Christians of Iran and Iraq, etc. We haven't otherwise martyred any Muslims yet, but Iran martyred Bishop Haik Hovsepian-Mehr, Rev. Mehdi Dibaj and Rev. Tateos Mikaelian. Here are the rules provided by the Iranian government to Bishop Hovsepian-Mehr prior to his torture and execution:

"No church service must be conducted in Persian language and all members must be issued with membership cards and their admittance to the services would be on production of the appropriate card.

Photocopies of these cards and appropriate membership lists with their addresses to be given to the competent authorities.

Sunday meetings were to be for members only. No meetings to be held on any other day, in particular Friday.

No new members to be admitted without informing the appropriate department of the Ministry of Information and Islamic Guidance."

Can you say fascist, totalitarian state?

So without intending any insult, please spare me the nonsense about our need to show some tolerance.

As I've said before with your quotes from the Quran, when they say "unbelievers" or "infidels" it's talking about 6th century Arabian Pagans that were trying to kill Mohamed and his followers, just like the violent passages in Deuteronomy or Joshua are talking about some Pagan Canaanites millennia ago. Neither one has anything to do with 21st century Americans. The fact that you can find anti-Islamic websites and quotes from former Muslims online doesn't impress me. I'm sure their are many Atheists out there that have poor opinion of Christianity or whatever they were raised as and claim to be "experts." Furthermore, you can't make a sweeping generalization about all Muslims based on what one "leader" or "expert" says. Do you think a Lutheran really cares what the Pope says? Islam has it's branches and the Middle East is divided on many cultural, religious, and tribal lines. So what one leader says doesn't mean all followers of Islam think that way.

I don't know why you are intent on denying even the intellectual achievements of the Islamic cultures. Yes, they learned from previous cultures -- you call it "stealing". But they also went beyond the learning of the past and developed completely new ideas. Did you ever notice that algebra, alcohol, algorithm, alembic, alkali, alchemy, elixir, and Almagest are all Arabic words? The Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi is the source of our word algorithm; his work combined both Greek and Indian mathematics and then went beyond both. Trigonometry in its modern form was created by Abu Abdallah al-Battani; he defined the trig functions we now know as sine, cosine, and tangent. Arab astronomers recalculated the diameter of the earth using the same technique as the Greeks, but by using greater care came up with a more accurate value, coming with 1% of the correct value. al-Battani calculated the precession of the equinoxes at 54.5 arc-seconds per year and the inclination of the ecliptic at 23 degrees 55 minutes. The large role Arabic observations played in astronomy is reflected in the many, many Arabic star names still in use: Alcor, Mizar, Altair, Deneb, Denebola, Zubenelgenubi, Zubeneschamali, Albireo, Algol, Aldebaran, Dubhe -- and those are just the ones I recall from memory; there are scores or hundreds more. Islamic scholars pretty much created the science of chemistry, which is why so many Arabic terms continue in use in chemistry today.

The list of Islamic contributions to knowledge is long and impressive. Say what you want about Islam now, but during their Golden Age, they were the leading intellectual community in the world.


Gee, my newspaper must be censoring those stories -- I didn't know that bombs were going off on NY's subways and SF's BART on a weekly basis. The last act of terrorism I knew of in this country was nearly four years ago. As far as I knew, there hasn't been anything since. But perhaps the nature of American society outside my town has been fundamentally changed. Please enlighten me on this.

Eras:

I am not intent on denying any accomplishment, no matter who did the accomplishing. But if I am not mistaken, the claim was made that while the rest of us were throwing rocks at the moon, some others were golden. I am only trying to put that claim into perspective, which is to say that it was a little hard for the Hindus, the Persians, the Syrians, the Byzantines, and the Egyptians to compete in the area of science when they were first being attacked and then conquered. And long before there was a House of Wisdom in Baghdad, there was the Academy of Gundishapur, founded by our Persian friends. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gundishapur

"During the early days of Islam, the medical school and hospital of Gundishapur was a focal point of science, particularly medicine, housing Iranian, Indian, Roman and Greek physicians active in both theoretical and clinical aspects. It is even said that prophet Mohammed's personal physician was a graduate of Gundishapur.

The surrender of the Persian empire to Muslim Arab forces in 638 brought the gradual decline of academic activities there. Yet the famous House of Wisdom under the Caliphate of Harun al-Rashid is also thought to have been the immediate successor of Gundishapur, but in fact modeled on it. The first generation of the Baghdad school were all in fact graduates and scholars of Gundishapur."

So who do we give the credit to? The golden age of Islam, or the pagan Persians who converted to Islam rather than die by murder? And if there already was a tradition of learning and inquiry, can you, I, or anyone else honestly claim that the continuation of that tradition is owing to some other group of people who came, saw, and conquered?

Oh, and Arabic words? Yeah, because that was the language that replaced Persian in discourse. Now consider whether the change in language was voluntary or imposed, and whether use of Arabic otherwise has anything to do with Islam per se.

Lastly, re "stealing." One either finds, is given, makes, purchases, or trades for, some thing. And if not that, then it was stolen.

Your logic runs afoul of the timing. For example, you extol the Persian Academy of Gundishapur and suggest that the Islamic House of Wisdom was really just the Persian Academy transplanted to Baghad.

Unfortunately, the timing is all wrong to support your claim that somehow Islam had nothing to do with any of this. The Muslims conquered Persia in 638. Harun al-Rashid reigned 150 years later, from 786 until 809. To put this time gap in perspective, imagine somebody suggesting that Silicon Valley, which began its period of greatness in the 1970s, in truth borrowed everything it did from the scholarship at the University of Glasgow in 1820.


Those pagan Persians who converted to Islam rather than die by murder would have faced their choice in 638, would they not? They must have lived to be about 200 years old in order to then produce the scholastic glories of the House of Wisdom. Moreover, the scholars whose achievements I cited all lived long after the conquest and therefore were brought up in the Islamic intellectual tradition. Al-Khwarizmi lived from 780 to 850; he was born in Khiva, which was conquered in the early 700s. Al-Battani lived from 850 to 929. Indeed, the Islamic intellectual flowering really didn't get rolling until after 800, long after the primary conquests were complete.


Arabic was the language of the Koran, and was therefore the language of education. The words I cite were of Arabic origin. Can you provide us with the Persian originals that you suggest were merely translated into Arabic?


Yes, and the Islamic scholars created the knowledge that I cited and much more. If you want to get specific and show that Al-Khwarizmi's algebra was in fact plagiarized from somebody, produce your evidence -- I'm sure that historians will be fascinated by such a discovery. If you wish to show that al-Battani's calculations were really stolen from somebody else, again, historians would be bedazzled by such scholarship as yours.

Now I want to step back from all of this and make an observation: your claims in this matter amount to bigotry, pure and simple. Because you don't like modern-day Muslims, you seek to deny them their historical achievements. Yes, their history has plenty of dark blots on it. Yes, they have plenty of ugly stuff in the Koran. But they also had a Golden Age of intellectual achievement during which they put to shame the efforts of Christians and Jews. During that period, Islam was intellectually superior the Christendom. The Christian universities who eagerly translated the works of Muslim scholars into Latin and used them as textbooks in their own universities demonstrated an intellectual integrity that your writing lacks.

Eras:

Bigotry? Yeah, right. Islam was developing algebra while owning and trading in slaves. Meanwhile, Dark Age western Europe was producing men and women who broke the proverbial mold and insisted that all of us are human, all of us have souls, all of us have the capacity to reason, and thus, slavery is immoral and an offense against God and humanity. And so these humans who lived in Dark Age western Europe began THE most progressive social change that has ever occurred in human history and, accordingly, before Enlightenment came, slavery had all but vanished in western Europe. And, ironically enough, it was precisely when the so-called Enlightment Europeans turned their backs on and rather grossly slandered their immediate forbears that they decided to take up the long-standing Arab Islamic practice of the African slave trade and founded classical empires based on the enslavement of a mass of humanity [in fine Greco-Roman tradition].

Then there's the Benedictine notion that there is dignity in labor, symbolized in the Benedictine motto of ora et labora [pray and work]. That idea too revolutioned western European society, since it is one thing to develop an abstract science, but it is an entirely other matter to actually get one's hands dirty and ask one's self the question, isn't there a better way to do this. And it was the acceptance of that attitude, or work ethic, that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

And the science you claim was done in the name of Mohammed's Islam, well, consider this:

Bukhari:V4B55N546 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.’”

If Islam is to be credited, as you claim, then why even have a modern science that studied or studies such, since Islam itself has already provided the answer?


Bukhari:V4B54N482 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, “O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.” So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter, the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather.’”

So, no need for atmospheric science in that regard, as Islam already provides the answer.



Qur’an 21:26 “....And We have set on the earth mountains as stabilizers, lest the earth should convulse without them. And We have made therein broad highways for them to pass through, that they may be guided. We have made the heaven a roof well guarded. Yet they turn away from its Signs! All (the celestial bodies) swim along, on a course, floating.”

Sorry, Eras, but I grew up in L.A., at the base of the Santa Monica mountains, and let me just say that the mountains did not stop the earth from shaking. And never mind that some mountains, the Himalayas to take just one example, are in existence precisely because the earth is not stable and so one plate is pushing against another and the Himalayas keep on getting higher and higher. But never mind, since there is no need to study mountains since we already know why they exist [and that shaking isn't really shaking].




Qur'an 18:90 "Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun"

Protection against the sun? Is that because the sun looks nearer the earth at sunrise and sunset than it does at midday? And so those at the ends of the earth are in need of some rather high SPF suntan lotion? So, the Qur'an teaches that the sun revolves, at least in part, around a flat earth. So need for any further study in that regard. And that also explains this fellow....

....the late Abu 'Abdullah Shaikh 'Abdul-'Aziz ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Abdur-Rahman Aal-Baz, formerly the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia:

"As far as its [the earth's] rotation, then I have denied it and explained the evidences denying it. However, I did not declare kufr upon the one who upholds it. I only declared kufr upon the one who says that the sun is stationary and does not run on a course because this statement collides with the clarity of the Noble Qur’an and the pure authentic Sunnah which both prove that the sun and the moon both run on a course…"

And the man said that in the late 1990s. So, according to his Islam, I am kufr because I believe that the sun is stationary [in relation to the earth]. And joining me in the ranks of the kufr would be all those astronomers from the golden age who believed that (a) the sun is stationary in relation to the earth, ( the earth rotates on on axis, and © the earth revolves around the sun. If such persons do exist, hard to claim that they held those beliefs in accordance with Islamic doctrine.

And if you truly wish to speak of logical fallacy, then you should not otherwise credit Islam with scientific discovery, any more than I should credit Nazism with scientific discovery [think the V2 rocket].

And if you wish to compare Islam and Christendom, I am wondering why you are not including Byzantium in your discussion. Is that because Christian Byzantium does not lend itself well to secular atheist thought in the modern West? And if Christendom was so intellectually inferior, can you kindly explain the Hagia Sophia? If you can find a more stellar example of civil engineering during the 500 or so years preceding and after the construction of the same, please let me know. And if you thought that the Roman aqueducts were something remarkable, then please see:

http://www.archaeology.org/0301/abstracts/byzantium.html

Lastly, put to shame Christians and Jews? Let's see, the first vizier of the Abbasid dynasty was a Persian Buddhist. The Christian physican Yuhanna dissected apes. His pupil Hunayn produced a two-volume work on the human eye. And there is debate concerning whether al-Kwarizmi was a follower of Zoroaster. And the founder of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, Abdallah al-Ma'mun, well, his wife and mother were Persian. And unlike nearly every other period of Islamic rule, he welcomed the efforts of Jews and Christians. Al-Kinda was otherwise persecuted by those who found his beliefs unorthodox [led by al-Mutawakkil]. And another soul interested in algebra was the Jew, Sahl ibn Bishr, who published a treatise on algebra. The earliest translator of the "Almagest" into Arabic was the Jew Sahl al-Tabari.

And, finally, if you were not so hostile towards me personally, then you would also know that Ahmad al-Nahawandi made astronomical observations at Gundishapu and compiled astronomical tables based on those observations [called the Mushtamil]. And do you know why our man al-Ma'mum began this golden age? He saw how backwards Arabs were in relation to the Persians and the Syrians.

So if you want me to credit Arabs, Persians, etc., I have no problem in doing so. And if you want me to credit Muslims, Christians, and Jews, I have no problem in doing so. But I am not going to credit a faith, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. So, contrary to your rather false claim, I am entirely willing to credit Muslims, but crediting Muslims is not the same as crediting Islam, just as crediting Christians is not the same as crediting Christianity. And if you understand the concept of logical fallacy, then I would expect you to understand the point.

Excellent news.

So now maybe we can debate the actual debate questions at hand, rather continue with the (fascinating and, for me at least, welcome) digression on the contributions of first millennium Persians, Jews, Christians and Arabs (of whatever faith) to later Western civilisation.

Just as a reminder, the debate questions are:

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?
Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?
Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?
How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?
[color=blue]Edited to add - [b]Erasmussimo has started a new thread on the intellectual and historical integrity of Islam here. Please do continue your discussion there as I have found it really interesting here (enough not to bother interrupting you & him before now; I only did it now because you seem to have come to a natural pause point.)

Since you understand the difference between individual Muslims and Islam as a whole, it shouldn't be hard to discuss these debate questions without another (interesting but tangential) segue into a theo-political analysis of the flaws of Islam as you percieve them.

For example, do you believe that the comparatively secular way many, if not most, Muslim immigrants in Western countries practice Islam - say, analogous to the way Christian denominations pick and choose the Biblical passages tenets they will pay attention to in daily life - helps or hinders their peaceful integration into Western societies?

Such a way of being a Muslim may not be Koranically (is that even a word?) correct - any more than being divorced, easting shellfish or cooking goat with goat's milk is Biblically correct - and fundamentalist Muslims may well condemn such people as not proper Muslims.

Is it your contention that such people should be completely literal in their faith or else not bother calling themselves Muslim? Is Muhammed Ali not a suitable role model? If not, and you do think it is possible for a Muslim to be as American as a Christian (no matter how "bad" a Muslim that may make him or her), AND you think that such "secular Muslims" are preferable to devout ones, how can we encourage the spread of such secular Islam (even if it isn't really Islam as you convincingly contend)?

Questions for Debate:

What benefits/problems do you foresee with Muslim immigration to western countries?

None that I can think of, unless they refuse to abide by OUR LAWS.


Do you believe that Muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?



This depends on how strictly they follow the Koran and Hadiths. Western culture is different than that of the Middle East. Why do you think that they do not want our Western influences in their countries? They do not want our permissive ways. And in many ways I can't blame them.


Should western countries require Muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

Earlier immigrants in our countries history successfully learn to fit into American society. They made efforts to learn our language, get educated and tried to fit in the best way they could. They accepted our ways, customs and laws. They were very successful. It seems to me the recent waves of immigrants seem determine to live apart, showing little or no interest in fitting in? They want to change us.



How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of Muslims seeking to immigrate?

I am not against immigration. I feel anyone that wants to come to America to live, must go through the proper procedures. We should not reward illegal entry. If a person does this based on our laws, then they should be welcomed and accepted.

I think the emphasis of the phrase "OUR LAWS" suggest that the willingness to adapt to the law is not the only barrier.

Take a step back for a moment and the possessive fervor here is itself a bit too adamant.

We have a legal code yes, for every day life issues you'll find that the legal code in many Muslim countries is essentially the same.

Enforcement may differ, but the violations are the same for average people.

Let's continue into the post to see if I can elaborate.



Here lies a big part of the problem, a historically inaccurate view of immigration.

The complaint you just made has been made in this country nearly its entire history.

Every wave of immigrants has been accused of refusing to integrate.

Why do you think "Little Italy" and "Chinatown" exist?
Italian American Timeline
In the earlier day it was the German and Irish immigrants turn to get the once over.

"No Irish Need Apply"

The Poles had there turn and Jewish immigrants there's
The Evolution of Polish-American Ethnicity

..and boy do the Hispanics still get an earful.

Every immigrant group that has graced our shores have doubtless heard the same line that many repeat today as if it were new.

Maybe we ought to have learned our lesson by now, it is entirely natural for any immigrant group to take it's time "integrating". It never helps to harass or nag, it makes them not want to be like these annoying Americans.

Muslims are acting no differently than any other immigrant group, at least not when it comes to the US.

So let us be civil and I suspect they will as well.

Julian:

To address your last first, each of us can call ourselves whatever we want. I certainly have no objection to that. I otherwise take it that you know how I feel about those Muslims who don't strictly adhere to what I believe to be the pure/true Islam of Mohammed [think sigh of relief]. My primary concern in their regard is that my own ingrained Roman Catholic ethic keeps reminding me that maybe I should tell them that if they want to be Muslims that they need practice Mohammed's Islam [i.e., the part of me that values honesty above all else is not so comfortable with the proposition that to save my skin and that of some others, I should remain silent and not tell these people that while they call themselves Muslim, they aren't really practicing Mohammed's Islam (unfortunately, I experience the same in reference to Reform Judaism and its adherents)].

Now on to your "main" questions. And they are indeed tough ones. And tough because, and I'll try not to go off on too much of a tangent, but tough because history shows that "Muslims" have been rather accomodating vis-a-vis the majority culture when they have been in the minority and were otherwise without the power to enforce/impose their view[s]. And I put the "Muslims" in quotes because I certainly do not mean all Muslims. But with that historical reality in mind, the questions you ask become rather difficult to answer. Let me start with JFK's remark that sincerity is always subject to proof. So in the context of history, or at least how I understand history, I want to know whether the tolerance is truly genuine, or if, when the demographics change over time [and given the respective birth rates, the demographics will change in their favor over time], the tolerant will become not so tolerant. I won't say that this is the exclusive or best means of testing their sincerity, but over on the WhyIslam site, after the first London bombing episode, some Muslims were posting pictures of the internment camps that we set up to "house" the Japanese during WWII. I suggested that if such was their concern, that maybe they could do what the Japanese did, to wit, enlist in the US armed forces and go make war on our enemy. My suggestion did not go over all that well. Mind you, I'm willing to make allowances for the view that no matter the religion, the ethnicity or race, etc., that some see the Iraq war as simply immoral/wrong, but the objections to my proposition were more in the nature of we Muslims won't be fighting against other Muslims anytime soon [apparently, the Iran/Iraq War has escaped their attention, but I digress]. And as soon as those objections were voiced, my first thought was, ahhh, I see, the old Muslim notion that no matter how bad the Muslim[s] in question, Muslim will never join hands with kufr in making war on another Muslim. Need I say that such is not a very comforting thought?

So the sincerity of the tolerance is one of my concerns. The other concern I have in this regard is that so long as the Qur'an, the Hadith, Mohammed's biography/ies exist, then there will always remain the possibility that your more secularly inclined Muslim will discover the true Islam and next thing you know...And as I am sure you can guess, this particular concern is not limited to Muslims, since a non-Muslim can "revert" and adopt Mohammed's Islam as her/his way of life and decide to wage jihad against the West [and as we all know, there have been such examples].

Now, how do we make them secular, or more secularized, or if preferred, more tolerant? Beats me. Since as I said, unless we have some test for sincerity, how will we ever be sure that we have succeeded? I would suggest that we "smother them in kindness," and while that might work for some, many, history has also shown that just when one thinks some others accept one, one learns otherwise, which brings us back to the sincerity part. I suppose that the best idea is from our friends at the ISIS [Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society], which is that we don't wait until they get here to secularize them, but we find some way to secularize them before they get here [i.e., we secularize the Islamic world]. Of course, as I am sure you realize, we would essentially be asking them to act un-Islamically, since shari'a and secularism are mutually exclusive, and so we would actually be asking them to fundamentally change the essence of Islam. I otherwise cannot help but think that as soon as we ever try to do so and the attempt is recognized for what it is, that we will find the Osamas of the Islamic world even that much more intent on waging jihad against the West [and then he'd and they would be right about us waging a war on Islam].

So, in conclusion, may I simply say that I do not think that I can offer you any solution that I have faith in? The only alternative that I haven't discussed yet is the destruction of Islam [not by force but by education]. Of course, that also runs the risk that some will wage an even more vehement jihad against us. But maybe there's no way out of that, given that the history of Christianity shows that violence and war was the price paid to purchase the separation of church and state [or if you prefer, the price paid to purchase the right of freedom of conscience and/or religion]. So maybe, no matter the cost, we ought to try supporting all those in the Muslim world who advocate tolerance [and we do so as covertly as possible, for the obvious reasons].

Sorry, one more item. The other problem we have is that while the so-called "moderate" Muslims might find abhorrent and otherwise denounce what some call "radical extremism," the reality remains that the mass of "moderate" Muslims have, far more often than not, not done much, if anything, to actually stop the abhorred and otherwise denounced conduct. And, sorry to say, but denunciation won't stop that sword from lopping off my head.

KivrotHaTaavah, you may have missed it, so I want to make a posting here that I have taken up some of the issues we started digressing into here, and started a new topic on them. I am curious as to your response to the continuation of our discussion there.

Hello there. I found this forum today and I am excited to be able to read this debate. Fisr of all, I am an American-arab who moved to the US in 1989 and became a citizen in 2002. I was not raised in a religious home, I am Druze by birth (Druze is a sect of Islam that is present in Lebanon, Syria and
Israel) but do not practice and am agnostic.

I have integrated into the american culture extremely well. I think the problem with Some of the immigrants form the Middle east is that they want to maintain their Islamic culture, which in my opinion "simply is contradictory to everything Western" I believe that if you are allowed to become a US citizen, you have to abide by this country's laws, and not use Islam as a law. Islam is meant to be a law and not just a religion, and people are used to living under its laws, but once you are allowed to come to the US, then you cannot bring your laws with you.

You can still practice your religion but cannot force it on others, cannot expect others to change their lives for you, and you gotta live and let live.

I do not hink that Muslims can integrate into western society's as long as they are still living under islamic rules in their houses.

How did I integrate. I guess I believe that one of the major reasons is that I left the Middle east because I never felt a sense of belonging in my culture. Why is that? because I am gay and I am not accepted there. I think this helped me become a better "assimilator" since I found my freedom and myself by living here and I would not give this up for anything.

This may be an exception, but I think The us should require certain changes before allowing people to move and live here:

1. You have to abide by US laws.
2. You have to be fluent in english
3. Your loyalty should be to the US "FIRST"
4. Your women should have equal rights like western women
5. You should learn TOLERANCE , you should learn to accept that you will be meeting jewish people and you have to accept them and not bring your prejudices with you.

However I don't know how the government can make sure these things happen. Until then, we will always be facing a big dilemma and I am not sure there is an easy solution, unless the Muslim community/leaders take charge and start implementing some changes into modernizing Islam to become compatible with this millenium.

Welcome Nolalebguy,

I am very glad to have your response, it was very well said and certainly on target.

I am an Israeli-American, so we both can practise our tolerance. Actually I have always had a lot of respect for the Druze and served with many.

The government can legislate the first four requirements fairly well but the fifth is the most important and we have to do that ourselves. We have the receiving nation need to be tolerant as well as the immigrants. It is a give and take situation that both benefit when it works and both lose when it doesn't.

Depends on the type of tolerance you are talking about: genuine or protective.

The government can take measures to prevent the spread of intolerance towards Arabs and Muslims by condemning actions made in bad taste against them, such as profiling, refusal to employee/train/treat Muslims. Tolerance does not always have to be a personal decision, if a body of people know that their government will not (heh, pardon the term) tolerate discrimination toward another group of people then I think there is a fair shot of a fundamental shift of the way things are viewed. True tolerance? Nope. Coercing into making it true tolerance? It's a start...

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?

They are the same benefits/problems of any immigration to any country. This is a scenerio that has been replayed over and over again in history. And it will accelerate as the homosapien population becomes globalized.

No, Muslims will not successfully integrate into the culture. They have no intent to. They want to preserve their culture just like any other people.

In the early years of the US, immigrants would come to the US and out of necessity, they would learn the language, learn monetary structure, learn law and civil code because it meant success or failure in the US. If you couldn't speak the language you would get no job, you would get no food, you would get no place to live, you would fail. And many did fail and had to return to their country of origin. Western countries can force the issue of language, monetary structure, law, civil code and religion if they really want to. But they won't. Why? Because they do not want to get into a situation that would escalate into war with another country.

How should the west respond? Well I can tell you that the US' attempt at trying to keep Mexicans from crossing our southern border has been less than successful. And to the disappointment of most south residing Americans, the president offering free medical care and biligual support to these illegal immigrants has only increased the tension. Having a strong leader willing to take the consequences of enforcing cultural morales is the only solution. But where are these strong leaders---in the past.

As one of the few muslims on this forum, I think I can offer a different point of view.

I think the integration of a muslim, or any other religion in fact, is not possible in the way many people want it to be done. Anyone of course would want to preserve their culture and past. That is very understandable. I am not sure how many non-Westerners would want to give up their past and join them. Hoping this to occur is ridiculous.

That however does not mean the Mediterranean Sea have to continue as the border between Islam and Christianity. Neither does it mean that either group should fight the other for the survival of their culture. Demanding that, in my opinion, would be immoral. It would also be unrealistic because not every aspect of culture is based on religion.

Culture is an evolving thing. If we work together to lessen the differences, get rid of prejudices and stereotypes and most importantly, get rid of the idea of assimilating others into your culture, I think we can make progress.

Look at Europe. There has been war between the nations occupying that continent ever since the death of Charles the Great. (Before that it was more like Romans vs invading tribesmen after the establisment of Pax Romana) The Germans and the French, although descending from the same group of people, have been enemies for centuries. Europe also saw the two most terrible wars in human history. But now, they are working and making progress towards unification. (Of course, the Soviets hastened this process greatly)

Of course, a lot of problems await this process. Radicals from both the Muslims and Christians exist. The currently existing prejudices, especially those formed during the War on "Terror", are hard to break. Also many from both sides hope that the other will be assimilated into their culture. That is also a problem. As I said earlier, no one would agree to this and it will only cause more unrest.

Questions for Debate:

What benefits/problems do you foresee with muslim immigration to western countries?

Do you believe that muslims can successfully integrate into the culture of a western country? If not, why not?

Should western countries require muslim immigrants to integrate/assimilate into the culture?

How should the west respond to the increasing numbers of muslims seeking to immigrate?

It's easier if I look at these questions from the perspective of an American. As yet I don't know of any act of terror against this country in this country that was associated with an American Muslim citizen. The 19 involved with 911 were foreigners and as far as I know had no meaningful base of operation in this country with any local Muslim group. So on the face of it I would say they have integrated pretty successfully. On the other hand if any individual or organization advocates violence in the name of their religion against Americans in America whether it is Christian Identity or some Muslim Brotherhood then I want them watched very closely.

As for more Muslims immigrating I see the matter in more general terms. We need to slow down the flow of immigrants in general into this country, a much better use of our Iraq war money, and set up a decent guest worker program. And if necessary change the constitution to not allow birth citizenship which is a heavily exploited tactic of illegal immigrant parents. In that regard I see Muslims in the same way as other groups. I don't know why I should look at them in any other way. If they obey our laws then their level of integration or lack of it is really none of my business. I don't spend nights worrying about the Amish and their strange separate ways. They even have their own Germanic dialect I understand.

That being said I must admit, perhaps in my ignorance, I have a slight uneasiness about Islam. There is that business of Sharia and how many of them really get the separation of church and state. Also the matters of Jihad and martyrdom seems to have modern implications in terms of the fairly broad acceptance among some of the legitimacy of suicide bombing in some instances. Then there is the literalist fundamentalist bias that I have heard exists with respect to the Koran and other Holy Muslim texts. I don't want to let in a lot of Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells, Muslim style.

Principally though I think if you get this general immigration invasion under control and seriously move toward energy independence and a nonintervention policy in ME internal affairs then I would guess most of our present concerns about Islam will end up being much ado about very little.

Should we close Little Italy? Condemn China Town? What about the French Quarter?

I can't speak to the issue of Western countries, but I can talk about forced assimilation in the U.S. It's not our way; it's not part of our culture to demand that newcomers embrace it.

If Arabs are much like every other group (the English, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Spainish, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, etc.) that's settled in the U.S., it's their children and grandchildren who will identify as Americans.

Here's an idea: why not require immigrants to swear their devotion to Christ? That ought to keep the Muslims out of site.