Islamic immigration raises questions.

Since its founding, Canada's steady economic, demographic and infrastructural expansion has extended a mari usque ad mare. Key to this were the shared Judeo-Christian values of immigrant populations, which were the sine qua non that enabled nation-building. Reflecting on the current immigration situation during the 2006 United Nations World Urban Forum, Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected calls to curb immigration and called our open, diverse society our greatest strength.

Comparison of the present with the past

While I would agree that immigration is the key to our nation's history, I would hasten to add that comparisons which fail to make a distinction between former immigration patterns and today's large non-Christian immigration patterns are not valid. Diversity of cultural expression is substantively different from diversity of values.

The fallout this past winter with regard to the passing of a code of conduct for immigrants (which included a rule against the stoning of women) by the Herouxville, QC town council has raised within our nation questions as to the precise nature of our "common Canadian values." Are we blithely bringing in populations that reject the fundamental foundations of our society? The sentiment that these assumed values are slipping away is not limited only to rural Quebec. Is not the unease expressed through some of Herouxville's admittedly tactless actions fundamentally a call to name, promote and defend those very traditions and beliefs that have made Western civilization, Canada and their respective institutions the standard-bearers they veritably are?

Certain of these Canadian values have been specifically affirmed recently by both Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stephane Dion. The National Post of February 3, 2007 quoted Mr. Harper upholding sexual equality and the right to equal treatment between men and women. For his part, Mr. Dion extolled the value of individual religious freedom. I, too, promote these values, but I think it only prudent that we as a nation not only promote them, but recognize the cultural and religious genius which gave birth to them: the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. The more we champion our secular Canadian values, the more they underscore the central role Christianity has played in building up our nation. Clearly, disregarding the source of the values we so proudly extol would be not only a spectacular misjudgment on our part, but an abdication of our responsibility to pass on a stable society to our children.

Among the many issues working against passing this responsibility onto the next generation of Canadians is the pressing issue of Islamic immigration. The position I wish to articulate is that the federal government should give serious consideration to careful restriction on Islamic immigration, with a caveat for legitimate refugees. Allow me to outline here the principal points supporting my thesis.

First, the history of Islam and its founding demonstrate that its presuppositions on equality and the relations between religion and state are fundamentally opposed to our values.

Second, the contemporary experiment of Islamic immigration in Europe should be interpreted as a likely scenario for Canada unless decisive action is taken to curb current immigration patterns.

History of Islam

Although Christianity and Islam draw on a shared heritage in some areas, nowhere are their differences more profound than in the area of relations between government, religion and society. Jesus Christ ennobled government authority by recognizing its own sphere of responsibility, as distinct from God's (render unto Caesar ...). Christ respected legitimate state authority, even to the point of death. His followers were ideal citizens of the state, even amidst protracted testing by persecution. For these reasons and others, the Christian soul is conditioned to see a natural tension, a plurality if you will, between regnum et sacerdotium.

Yet are we at liberty to presuppose this Christian backdrop of new immigrants to Canada? In considering prospective Muslim immigrants to Canada, we should understand that Mohammed undermined the unique integrity of civil government by subsuming it under and into the religious community. Thus, authentic Islam has no equivalent to the Western dichotomy of regnum et sacerdotium, the division between the temporal and the spiritual powers.

Theocratic society

Inherent in the Islamic tradition of amalgamating these two distinct powers into one is the working assumption by its adherents that there is no human legislative power outside of that law promulgated by the revelation to the Prophet. Thus, no political fruit is beyond the reach of an ambitious imam because no political fruit was denied to Mohammed, whose life forms the cultural paradigm of the Muslim conscience and whose political life is the standard-bearer for succeeding generations of Muslims. Within this scope, traditional Islamic jurisprudence has allowed Muslims to emigrate to infidel lands only under two conditions. The first is the need to secure care for Muslim captives in foreign lands (and this does not apply to our situation here in Canada). The second condition is simply to spread the "light of Islam" among the unbelievers by moving into their lands.

The widely acknowledged scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis deals with this in his magisterial work, Islam in History. Thus, Islamic polity has no Caesar, only God. Religious belief and political power form an indissoluble unity. From this brief assessment, it seems clear that Islamic political ambitions cannot be appeased, for they are sustained by the history of their religion.

Islam and inequalities

This history of Islam, which forms a constitutive dement of each Muslim's life and which no democratic host country could reasonably expect to be jettisoned, is demonstrably bound up with inequalities. Whereas the inequalities which historically remained in Christian societies existed and persist in spite of its founder, the fundamental social inequalities in Islam are sanctioned by Islamic Holy Writ and the life of Mohammed.

These key inequalities are between man and woman, believer and unbeliever. They have remained unchallenged in the Islamic world in spite of numerous internal conflicts and movements that sought to establish "true" Islamic brotherhood. Yet, none of these reforming movements called into question the sacrosanct distinction subordinating women and unbelievers.

Severely curtailing the freedom of these two groups has been an inherent part of Islam, supported and practised by the Prophet and solidified by the classical history of the community. Islamic law openly allows for wife-beating, concubinage (a man may have four wives; more if he can afford them), polygyny and sundry other violations of basic human dignity as understood in Christian and modern times (Suras 4:3, 4:34). As our world grows ever more interconnected, are we to assume that these inequalities will form a composite of Canadian values as well? What guarantee do we have that these Islamic "values" will not constitute part of Canada's multicultural fabric? Are Muslims free to believe and practise these core Islamic values in Canada?

Related to the situation of women is the protracted and abysmal situation of non-Muslims in traditional Islamic societies. Do Muslims bring these animosities to their new land of Canada?

Just cultural trinkets?

Further, care should be taken lest the profound philosophical principles related to theology be summarily dismissed as benign cultural trinkets. The pluralism that came to develop in the West was not by chance, but was derived from key doctrinal foundations of the Christian faith, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. This admiration for true pluralism leads one to ask: can a cohesive society be built between the followers of the often-capricious deity depicted in the Qur'an with the followers of the God of compassion known to Jews and Christians?

In part, the answer to this latter question is partially unfolding before us in the contemporary political reality that is modern Europe. It is there that we are shown an indubitable snapshot of Canada in another generation or two. There are those Muslims who adapt to the styles of their new homeland, but yet retain derogatory views toward women and non-Muslims.

Unassimilated subcultures

The other group, best witnessed in Germany and France, consists of unassimilated immigrant subcultures resentful of their surroundings and eager to undermine them should the opportunity present itself. We need look no further than the misnamed "youth" riots in Clichy-sous-Bois in 2005. For Canadians, does tolerance require us to turn a blind eye to Islamic radicalization of a whole section of Canadian society?

Basing itself on the professional contribution of numerous academics, judges, scholars and retired politicians, the Institute for Research on Public Policy, in its volume Belonging, Diversity, Recognifon and Shared Citizenship in Canada, has concluded that like Europe, it is taking Muslim immigrants much longer to catch up to native-born Canadians and that even children of immigrants do not identify themselves as fully or proudly Canadian. Reading this, Mr. Prime Minister, causes no small amount of concern. It raises the question: do we not disregard Europe's problems at our own peril?

Granted, some of these questions about Canada's future cannot be easily answered, but the issues should be openly discussed, without fear of labeling, retribution and self-appointed mercenaries on Human Rights Commissions. Useful dialogue means that participants grapple with the truth and in the issue of Islam and the West, the stakes are too high for fundamental misunderstandings. Let Canadians clearly perceive what Canadian culture is and whence it has come.

Jason Charron, M.A., is a Byzantine-rite sub-deacon and volunteer with Catholic Insight magazine. God has blessed him with Halyna, his wife and best friend. They have four children.