A thought experiment about immigration

Sat Feb 25 12:06:10 PST 2006

In response to Jim Maule: One might also say that Christianity was not in
its early founding period spread by military or violent means, and note that
its founder declared that his followers did not take up arms because his
kingdom was not of this world. (Of course much happened later in Christian
history that involved military action and violence, some justified in my
view, but much unjustified.) I will let others who know more of the founding
of Islam speak to the part that military and violent means played in its
spread during its early founding period and later history.

For another piece that perhaps should be read along with the article that
Allen Asch brought to our attention, see Nancy de Wolf Smith, *Daughter of
Islam*,
 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008016,
which explores the tolerant version of Islam that Smith says is traditional
in Indonesia. Smith's piece discusses Yenny Wahid and Ms. Wahid's father,
Abdurrahman Wahid "the respected and beloved Islamic scholar who headed
Indonesia's largest Muslim cultural organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU),
before becoming the first president of newly democratic Indonesia from 1999
to 2001." Smith goes on to say:

"In a seminal article for this newspaper--'Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam'--Mr.
Wahid wrote on Dec. 30 that 'a terrible danger threatens humanity' in the
form of 'an extreme and perverse ideology' that grossly distorts the true
meaning of the religion. He called on fellow Muslims to end the 'complicity
of silence' about terrorism and other acts of intolerance which characterize
the radicals' behavior.

"At 31, Yenny Wahid--her real name is Zannuba--is trying to follow her
father's example and defend the values their faith teaches."

This thread is perhaps getting off topic for the list -- at least my part in
it is -- and so I will subside.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 2/24/2006 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: A thought experiment about immigration

Mark,

Cannot one say a similar thing about Christianity? In other words, no
area that was Christian dominated has ever ceased to be Christian
dominated except by way of force (e.g., Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, Syria
....) or through the political and social pressures sparked by the
Enlightenment?

It is claimed that Islam has not (yet) had an/its E(e)nlightenment.
Perhaps that is why Western Enlightment is so feared/loathed?

And might not that inform suppositions (including some of those
expressed on this list) about the differences in which American
constitutional frameworks are viewd by American Muslims and by other
Muslims? Can it be said that American constitutional principles, born in
part of the Enlightenment, spark "enlightenment" in the cultural,
religious, and political traditions carried to this nation by
immigrants? 

Is that the real reason "the West" is so dangerous in the eyes of
jihadists?

Jim Maule

>>> "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> 2/24/2006 4:20:52
PM >>>
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me of Islam and of Islamic
cultures
could comment on the following point (which I don't think is at all
original
but which may be important). 

I have heard it said that no area that was Muslim dominated has ever
ceased
to be Muslim dominated except by way of force (e.g., Spain). Is it
possible
that traditional Muslim belief involves such a total submission of the
adherents' lives -- perhaps including as I have heard a prohibition on
leaving Islam on pain of death -- and such tight family, community,
and
cultural constraints on religious dissent, that it should not be
analogized
to other religious, political, or philosophical traditions? Of course
a
Muslim may say that Islam is simply a superior religion, and that is
why it
seems to "stick." Nevetheless, might the possible "totalizing" effect
of
traditional Islam reasonably be seen as a barrier to acculturation to
American political values (including democracy, freedom of religion,
and
protection of dissent)? And might that barrier give a reasonable
person
pause in thinking that large scale immigration of traditional Muslims
is an
unalloyed good?

I recognize that the same point was made at one time about communist
regimes; it was said that no country that had become communist had
ever
ceased to be so absent forcible intervention. The irreversible,
horrific
quality of the "totalizing" society in Orwell's 1984 loomed large in
the
minds of some of us as we considered communist regimes. That view has
now,
of course, been falsified many times over; it seems communism was far
less
able than some of us feared to remake human beings and fix them in a
mold.
Perhaps the same is true, or will become true, of the supposedly
irreversible nature of Islamic culture. I do not mean by this to
suggest
that traditional Islam is like the society in Orwell's 1984 (except
perhaps
for its supposed irreversibility). And of course it is undeniable that
there
are many Muslims who are good American citizens. 

Perhaps time will show that traditional Islamic culture is no more
irreversible than communism (or traditional European Christian
culture)
turned out to be; but I wonder whether that is true. Islam already has
been
around a lot longer than communism, and nearly as long as European
Christian
culture.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:41 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
Subject: RE: A thought experiment about immigration

	It seems to me that there's a limit to the utility of arguments
from
past immigrations.  The Puritans were a radical extremist religious
group
when they immigrated.  They set up something of a theocracy that, to
my
knowledge, did some pretty bad things before it was displaced.  By the
standards of their era, they were probably not so bad.  But if future
radical Muslims really were going to be like the Puritans, and as
influential as the Puritans (and I take it that Frank Cross's quite
sensible
point is that they likely wouldn't be nearly as influential), that
would
confirm my fears, it seems to me, not disprove them.

	This reminds me of a cartoon that I once saw:  Some American
Indians
were watching what was meant to be Columbus's ships, and complaining to
each
other that the passengers were "just a bunch of illegal immigrants." 
I
think the cartoon was intended to be a criticism of the critics of
illegal
immigration, and a reminder that our ancestors were once immigrants who
came
without permission of the existing inhabitants.  But it seems to me
that the
cartoon demonstrated the exact
opposite:  The American Indians were of course ruined by these illegal
immigrants, and would have been in many ways far better off if the
Spaniards
and all who came after them were promptly deported.

	My concern about radical Muslims, as I suggested in earlier
posts,
is simply that I wouldn't want to be governed by radical Muslims, just
as I
wouldn't want to be governed by Puritans (but have nothing against
being
governed by other immigrants); I would think that most on this list
would
share the same preference, though they may disagree with me on how to
implement that preference.  I'm also not nearly as sure as others that
the
process of becoming American citizens will either change the
immigrants'
views, or will assure that only those who support the positions that
most of
us support will become citizens.  (One answer to "why would a person
go
through the trouble of becoming a citizen if he/she did not want to be
a
member of the community" is "because it's much safer and economically
better
to live here as a citizen than to live here as a noncitizen or to live
in
many other places as a
citizen.")

	Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.