What is wrong if Muslim are in Europe?

First thing that after second world war, all European nation placed advertisment in newspepers and invited labour of underdeveloped nations to come and help us,now if your young population is discreaseing, who will help your old people?I requist you please eccept these poor muslim and mix up with marrage tie with them this is call of time, this is my firm openion is that all world must through way their national identity and let accept world citizenship and bring peace in world.

Posted by: Ramesh Raghuvanshi | 8/18/06

Naive

So, as Mr. Walker notes, Europe doesn't need Muslim immigrants economically, many of whom are unemployed or contributing little in taxes, and they cause sizable problems due to terrorism, crime, diminishment of freedom of speech (e.g., Orianna Fallaci, Bridgit Bardot), damage schooling, vulgarize the culture when they do assimilate to Ali G-style chav norms, and so forth. The obvious first step is to do no more harm. Stop taking in new Muslim immigrants. In particular, enforce the rules against cousin marriage (according to the BBC, 55% of British Pakistani married people are married to their first cousins). This causes both birth defects and is the main engine of immigration fraud since an arranged marriage to a cousin in the Old Country is a ticket to a visa. Further, it makes assimilation unworkable. Next, European countries should expand their current buyout programs that offer a few thousand dollars to immigrants to go home. Offer substantial sums, such as $100,000 per family, to Muslims to leave Europe and not return.

Posted by: Steve Sailer | 8/18/06

A missing universal

Walker wanders like a Diogenes, but unsurprisingly does not find an honest accomodationist. A reason why is stongly hinted at in J. M. Coetzee's novel "Elizabeth Costello" where it admonishes -- and informs -- that: "There must be some limit to the burden of remembering that we impose on our children and grandchildren. They will have a world of their own, of which we should be less and less part." It would appear that very few Muslim communities of significance are within multiple generations of perceiving the Coetzee wisdom. Yet something of the kind has been essential to human progress of every description, from paradigm-burdened science to red-necked racism.

Posted by: richard leather | 8/18/06

Some Amazingly Bad Arguments

Martin Walker deploys some amazingly bad arguments for his thesis that muslim immigration to Europe is not such a big deal. For example: (1)"Most immigrants continue to come to Europe to better themselves and to secure a brighter future for their children, not to promote an Osama Bin Laden fantasy." Yes, but many come to work AND also support these fantasies - enough to create a major problem for Europe. (2) "Nor is religious violence altogether new for a continent that spawned the Crusades..." So that justifies religious violence by muslims today? European christians no longer run around beheading and blowing up people for religious reasons. But some muslims do and many more sympathize. (3)"The Arab world is not so very alien to Europe." We got the table fork from the arabs, don't you know! Well thanks, but honor killings, enforced illiteracy of women, religiously sanctioned murder of homosexuals and apostates, rampant anti-semitism and contempt for western freedoms? Yes, we still find that pretty álien. (4) "Recent research ...by Lucinda Platt ... found that some 56 percent of children from Indian working-class families go on to professional or managerial jobs in adulthood." A statistical hoax. Indian immigration to the UK contains a large proportion of hindus, sikhs and christians, who have assimilated into British society much better than muslims, and who are the main source of the doctors and other professonals Walker refers to. Incidentally, this fact also shows that Britain is a rather open society, in which immigrants can make rapid progress - if they want to. (4)"Applying the formula to Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims produces 80,000 fundamentalists, of whom some 2,400 may be dangerous—a figure very close to the number of MI5 agents." 2400 terrorists! But that is a huge number, higher than any previous threat e.g. the IRA. Given that it probably takes 5-10 security agents to keep proper track of one terrorist, this means that the British people are in very grave danger. Expect many more successful terrorist attacks like 7/7. In addition, compared to France, Britain has been far more lax about permitting unrestricted political activity by extreme fundamentalists. Thus the french ratios for fundamentalists and terrorists are likely a significant underestimate for Britain. (5)"[Tariq] Ramadan believes that an independent and liberal Islam is emerging in Europe." This is a one-sided and rather naive evaluation of Ramadan,who is better seen as sophisticated Western propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood and for the salafist doctrines that are a key ingredient in modern sunni jihadist terrorism. See, for example, Paul Landau's book Le Sabre et Le Coran. (Editions du Rocher, 2005). Landau sets out some of his analysis here: http://www.trans-int.com/quarterly/1-islamic-reformism-and-jihad-on-the-discourse-of.html And there are quite a few other shaky, one-sided, misleading or factually unsupported arguments too. That's not to say that the article doesn't also say much that is sensible and right. Plenty of european muslims are assimilating and european governments need to do a lot more to foster that process, for example much greater economic openness on the european continent (especially in the labor market) and a much more forthright defense of liberal democratic values and norms, including a far more vigorous prosecution of those who actively seek to destroy liberal society through violence.

Posted by: NB | 8/18/06

an interesting article if a bit flawed

The quote about Indian immigrants assimilating well is especially disingenuous given that many if not most such immigrants are not Muslims. I hope that the quote of the poll showing that 9 out of 10 muslims would report a plot to the police was accurate, and I hope that the poll itself reflected more than folks responding to a pollster with the safest thing to say.

Posted by: Sully | 8/18/06

complacent in the extreme

Mr Walker's article is full of statistics which should alarm any secular native European who cares about the future of his continent. While the relationship between the native French and the immigrants clearly involves conflict and "they account for almost a quarter of those under the age of 25" after only half a century, since "the Muslim birthrate in Europe is three times higher than that of non-Muslim Europeans", how can there possibly not be anything to worry about? Yet this is precisely the conclusion he reaches.

Posted by: Dughall Halliday | 8/18/06

Life on earth

This is the most infantile notion I've read lately. As long as there is life on earth there will be direction to establish one's own, or one's group will. Some one will say I am not EVERYTHING (and therfore NOTHING) I AM SOMETHING! Others over time will join, form group, and then larger group.

Posted by: Sue | 8/18/06

Eugenics, anyone?

Steve Sailer proposes a course of action utilized by the Eugenics advocates in the US in the late 19th-early 20th centuries: Although there is little genetic danger to marriage of first cousins, and no Christian tradition forbidding it, society should prohibit such marriages because we want to break up immigrant communities. About half of the States prohibit cousin marriage, states admitted to the Union from roughly the Civil War to World War I. Of course, the immigrant groups affected were the Poles, Italians, Finns, Czechs, etc.--"foreign" by the standards of the time, but not in comparison with today's immigrants. Since the Nazis, Eugenics has, um, lost its lustre. Bottom line: if Muslim immigrants are to assimilate, it should be via their heads and hearts and behavior, not via the gene pool.

Posted by: william jennings bryan | 8/18/06

decision time

It is not Arab culture that is alien but Muslim pathology that is alien to European, and most Asian and African and any other civilizations. Why? Because it encourages jihad - violence towards the other, the "unbeliever" the dhimmi, the kafir, the slave. If one does not accept the lunacies of mohamed he is branded an inferior human, fit only to be a serf or worse a statistic. Multiple wives, first cousin marriage, genital mutilation, and other horrors do not in any way relate to Western civilization as it has developed over the from its Judaeo Christian origins. The sooner Muslims reform or liberate themselves from thier muslim chains the better for us all.

Posted by: Leni | 8/18/06

Who are your forefather?

Our oldest ancientister was borned in Africa,We are his heratage,How can white people say they are different,only GOD`s favourt, is they have any proof that they born unque? or they only born form eve and adam?

Posted by: Ramesh Raghuvanshi | 8/19/06

The Final Freedoms

On the horizon appears an approaching confrontation so contentious, any clash of civilizations will have to wait its turn. On one side, a manuscript by an unknown author titled: The Final Freedoms, against all the gravitas religious tradition can bring to bear. This, the first wholly new interpretation for 2000 years of the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ focuses specifically on marriage and human sexuality, challenging all natural law theory and theology. At stake is the credibility of several thousand years of religious history. What at first appears an utterly preposterous challenge to the religious status quo rewards those who persevere in closer examination, for it carries within its pages an idea both subtle and sublime, what the combined intellectual histories of religion and science have either ignored or dismissed as impossible. An error of presumption which could now leave tradition staring into the abyss and humble the heights of scientific speculation. For if this material is confirmed, and there appears to be both the means and a concerted effort to authenticate it, the greatest unresolved questions of human existence may finally have been untangled. Published only on the web and distributed free as a pdf download, made up of twenty nine chapters and three hundred and seventy pages, this new teaching has nothing whatsoever to do with any existing religious conception known to history. It is unique in every respect. Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness, human ethical perception, and providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition. This new interpretation explains the moral foundation of all human thought and conduct and finds expression within a new covenant of human spiritual union, the marriage between one man and one woman. It resolves the most intractable questions and issues of human sexuality and offers possibilities for peace, health, healing and cultural development political process has yet to dream of. This new teaching is pure ethics. It requires no institutional framework, no churches, no priest craft, no scholastic theological rational, costs nothing and ‘worship’ requires only conviction, faith and the necessary measure of self discipline to accomplish a new moral imperative and then the integrity and fidelity to the new reality. As the first ever religious teaching able to demonstrate its own efficacy, the first ever religious claim to knowledge that meets the criteria of the most rigourous, testable scientific method, this teaching enters the public domain as a reality entirely new to human history and available for anyone to test, discover and confirm for themselves. The beginnings of an intellectual and moral revolution are unfolding on the web. And anyone trying to imagine where solutions for war, conflict, corruption, injustice and environmental destruction will come from, may comprehend from this material, the catalyst that may very well define the very future of humanity and the earth itself! Download links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

Posted by: Robert Landbeck | 8/19/06

"Political Fairytale"

There's a good comment on the Walker article by Roger Kimball at New Criterion magazine: http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2006/08/rich-variety-of-muslim-immigration.html "Mr. Walker's essay belongs to that large and growing genre of fiction, the political fairytale. The aim of such works is not to put its readers to sleep, but to soothe them into acquiescence. This it does in two ways. First, it tells people what they want to hear--the threat of radical Islam is overstated by irresponsible purveyors of hysteria. Second, it flatters their moral vanity: you, Dear Reader, are a good liberal and know that there is no political problem that cannot be solved by good will and a willingness to negotiate and see the other chap's point of view. But wait: What is the other chap's point of view? I have always admired this frank observation by Hussein Massawi, a former Hezbollah leader: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something, We are fighting to eliminate you." Point noted. "

Posted by: NB | 8/20/06

Martin Walker Article

Martin Walker for Dhimmi Of The Year.

Posted by: Susan Norton | 8/20/06

Women and Islam

Isn't it about time people everywhere recognise Islamic misogyny for what it is - not a cultural difference but a denial of human rights to half the population.

Posted by: lizzy | 8/21/06

Landbeck's hash

It is hard to decide which drivel is less worth engaging with, Walker's or Landbeck's. Landbeck might benefit, however, from reading Kurz (Walker's inanity being published makes him too late for redemption of any kind): http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pkurtz_26_4

Posted by: skeptic | 8/21/06

re: Eugenics, anyone?

william jennings bryan said "there is little genetic danger to marriage of first cousins". This is most definitaley wrong. The occurence of any heritable disease in a given population is dependent on the number of defective genes in that population. By procreating with someone you are related to, you automatically act as if you have increased the number of defective genes and so you increase the chances of having children suffering from genetic diseases. The laws of genetics are not influenced by political philosophy.

Posted by: Pete | 8/22/06

Right as rain

I agree completely. So why has there been an influx of primitive religious-fanatic desert-dwellers into civilization? Because the business-bastards, instead of raising wages to attract the indigenous population, wanted to keep wages low and imported unskilled labor to fill the low-wage jobs. They did that not only in England but in most of Europe. So, for the pleasure of having to pay the minimum, business prevailed upon their governments to allow the immigration of thousands upon thousands of cultural primitives who cling together in ghettos and import religious-fanatic mullahs who are a danger to Western civilization and society. Another victory for next-quarter, bottom-line myopia that you will pay heavily for.

Posted by: Odie | 8/23/06

islamic misogyny ?!

you need to understand islam before you make such statements

Posted by: atif | 8/25/06

Cousins

Enforce the rules against the marriage of first cousins? What "rules"?! It's perfectly legal in the UK and in most other countries; in the Middle East it's commonplace and does not give rise to a higher rate of birth defects than anywhere else. I suspect that you're making a political point under the cover of biological one.

Posted by: Dan | 8/25/06

Followed by Amazingly Worse Arguments

Wow. I wonder how many Muslims you've actually ever talked to - without already suspecting them of religious fundamentalism or backwards cultural practices? Maybe you don't actually need to before you make up your mind since the television has obviously done enough research for you. I've never encountered racism first-hand, but this comment was ridiculous. I was especially amused at how you could dismiss some stastistics as hoaxes and claim others were flawless. I also loved how you try to make the minority of uneducated, misguided muslims who persecute women, homosexuals, ect. into the majority. Look around - these crimes are not eliminated from ANY culture completely, although you seem to think the Western world has done it faultlessly... If you come in with the better-than-thou attitude, how you you think anyone will react? As a Pakistani woman (sorry, no marriage to my cousin here, or any of those wonderful other things all of us seem to be subjected to), Muslims are on the whole, contributing to positively society - take a look inside your universities and see how many are graduate students (myself and all family members included), not to mention undergrads. This is not just my "crowd" either - every Pakistani family I've met (and I can't even begin to count how many) expect their children to study hard, become professionals and work hard, in whatever society they grew up in. This is the rule, not the exception, as some might like to think. Lastly, I have to say integration takes both cultures. No one can come from another country and instantly fully comprehend the culture - and if they come and are met with so much hostility, is it any surprise they stay with others like them? Flip it around - what would you do if you moved to Singapore/China/India or any other foreign place?

Posted by: HS | 8/29/06

islamic misogyny ?!

Whats to understand? Subjugation of women is misogynistic . Period. You can’t rationalize oppression.

Posted by: Sean | 9/21/06

paranoia and fear.

this just shows how far from rational our 'debate' on Islam has become. it would do everyone much better if British schools taught about the history, cultures and geography of the world, not just their little island (omitting Italian just as much as Arabic classics). not only does one feels more accepted, not to say understood, when the other party has at least a vague understanding of their heritage and current position, it might cure some of the ignorant hysteria around Islamd, and help the British see these people as human beings, at least to an extent. (same is true for the rest of Western Europe, but to a lesser extent.) I've had Bosnian friends all my life, and can assure you they're just as morally and philosophically developed, complex, as my Catholic self. of course, we could argue that the Bosnian Islam is milder, perhaps because it hasn't been traumatised by waves of colonial occupation, political terror and economic exploitation. it's the same story everywhere: we don't understand a word of their language, yet it's them that don't want to understand us!

Posted by: Jana P Davies | 10/6/06

THIS ARTICLE FACTS ARE NOT TRUE

The facts here are inaccurate.

Posted by: Martin | 11/8/06