Syrian refugees - the straight dope?

[DaveC426913]

I am getting an alarming amount of hatred directed toward the Syrian Refugees. Enough that I am no longer convinced I know both sides of the story.

I certainly get a lot of rhetoric about people not wanting their culture to take over ours (i.e. Canada), but not a lot of objective facts.

Are they making demands about where, how and under what law they live if/when they come here?

(This is Canada, and we are multi-cultural, so I'm trying to suss out what is truly the jeopardy here from what is merely garden-variety racism).

I'm not looking for personal opinions, I'm looking for references to factual accounts of these demands, by these refugees.

 

[DaveC426913]

11 foot poles are now available in the lobby for a nominal cost ...

 

[Evo]

Well, look at the problems the French are having with immigrants as a good example of how immigrants refused to adopt to their new country and insist on their old ways, their dress codes, their laws.

Countries across Europe have wrestled with the issue of the Muslim veil - in various forms such as the body-covering burka and the niqab, which covers the face apart from the eyes.

The debate takes in religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions and even fears of terrorism.

The veil issue is part of a wider debate about multiculturalism in Europe, as many politicians argue that there needs to be a greater effort to assimilate ethnic and religious minorities.

The French Interior Ministry said, as of September 2012, 425 women had been fined and 66 had been warned for violating the headscarf ban.

The European Court of Human Rights upheld the ban on 2 July 2014 after a case was brought by a 24-year-old French woman who argued that the ban violated her freedom of religion and expression.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

Are you just wanting information on the current flood of immigrants?

 

[Bystander]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=honor+killings+in+america
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sharia+law+in+us
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=somali+assimilation+in+america
Here're three bulk searches to take with a certain amount of salt. There's also the "sanctuary" question, and a mixed bag of information.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sanctuary+cities
Next weekend's scheduled for trip to old stomping grounds, supposedly taken over and fast going down the toilet --- it'll give me some idea --- no more than anecdotal evidence for you.

 

[klimatos]

It takes time for a group of immigrants to assimilate into a strange culture. I would guess that it normally takes about three generations, but will bow to scientific studies on the matter. My wife was born in Detroit, but spoke only Polish until she started school--and her parents had been in the US for fifty years at that time. Strongly ethnic city neighborhoods and rural regions have always been a normal part of the American scene--giving it much of its color and vibrancy.

I have lived in the Arab World and should hate to see anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry join anti-semitism and racial prejudice.

 

[JorisL]

It takes time for a group of immigrants to assimilate into a strange culture. I would guess that it normally takes about three generations, but will bow to scientific studies on the matter. My wife was born in Detroit, but spoke only Polish until she started school--and her parents had been in the US for fifty years at that time. Strongly ethnic city neighborhoods and rural regions have always been a normal part of the American scene--giving it much of its color and vibrancy.

I have lived in the Arab World and should hate to see anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry join anti-semitism and racial prejudice.

The problem I see here in Belgium is that they plan to build camps where the refugees will live for a while.
But how can we expect them to merge into society? If you are (basically) treated as an outsider, don't you figure its better to stick with people of your own culture?
This can take on extreme sizes, my town has about 5000 inhabitants.

The government is looking at the possibility to relocate about 800 refugees to an abandoned military base. That's almost 20% of the "native" population.

I understand the appeal of this as they only have to open half a dozen of these camps to "solve" the issue of housing.
The important part however is integration, which isn't touched on perhaps even ignored.

 

[jtbell]

My wife was born in Detroit, but spoke only Polish until she started school

Similarly, my mother was born in the UP of Michigan, moved to Ohio with my grandparents, and spoke only Finnish until she started school around 1920. In Ohio, they lived in a small neighborhood whose residents were almost all Finnish immigrants, with a social hall and church.

 

[fargoth]

I remember seeing this movie, which sheds some light on the situation with Muslim immigrants.
The problem is not necessarily with the refugees who are coming right now, as it is not the problem with the immigrants who came seeking jobs in the UK - it's their children or grandchildren who feel their parents have lost direction and feel the need to be more connected to Islam.

 

[mheslep]

Are they making demands about where, how and under what law they live if/when they come here?

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate Al-Qaida; 62% of Canadian Muslims want "some form" of Sharia law instituted in Canada.

I can't quickly locate opinion polls about Syria on the subject, but in its neighbor Jordan, among those who say Sharia should be the law of the land: 67% favor stoning for adultery, 57% favor whipping and cutting off hands for theft, 82% favor the death penalty for converts away from Islam.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would guess that it normally takes about three generations

And what does the host society do in the meantime? Certainly accepting their parents into the country didn't generate enough good will to stop Mohammed Bouyeri from killing. Or Cherif and Said Kouachi. Or Amedy Coulibaly. Or Mohammed Merah - who killed kids, for heaven's sake.

 

[HossamCFD]

I can't quickly locate opinion polls about Syria on the subject, but in its neighbor Jordan, among those who say Sharia should be the law of the land: 67% favor stoning for adultery, 57% favor whipping and cutting off hands for theft, 82% favor the death penalty for converts away from Islam.

The numbers are indeed quite disturbing. However, I think the study should be taken with a pinch of salt. Many muslims would feel obliged to show support for Hudud (the part of Shariah that's concerned with the barbaric nonsense) so that they don't admit to themselves they contradict the Quran (in case of the punishment for theft) or authentic Hadith (in case of adultery and apostasy). It doesn't necessarily mean they want to actively implement this garbage. I've never heard of any protest in Jordan or Syria demanding that stoning should be a law, or even something relatively benign as delegalising Alcohol, which you can easily buy in both Jordan and Syria.

 

[russ_watters]

I am getting an alarming amount of hatred directed toward the Syrian Refugees. Enough that I am no longer convinced I know both sides of the story.

I certainly get a lot of rhetoric about people not wanting their culture to take over ours (i.e. Canada), but not a lot of objective facts.

Are they making demands about where, how and under what law they live if/when they come here?

(This is Canada, and we are multi-cultural, so I'm trying to suss out what is truly the jeopardy here from what is merely garden-variety racism).

I'm not looking for personal opinions, I'm looking for references to factual accounts of these demands, by these refugees.

I'm not sure I know what you are after. Refugees are never in any position to make demands, only requests (pleas), so I can't imagine what that might be referring to. But your mentioning of Canada being multi-cultural implies the discussion you are having/seeing is of general immigration impacts, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with refugees since refugees are essentially by definition exceptions to normal immigration policy and do not require alterations to existing policies. However, both what to do about refugees and the larger immigration policy issues are mostly opinion-based, so the facts are rarely what the arguments about.

Case in point is the "melting-pot" analogy of multi-culturalism in the US, which would likely apply in Canada. That implies total assimilation (the result would be a homogeneous mixture of cultures). Another model used is the "tossed salad", which is self-contained groups of cultures mixed together without overlapping. The historical reality has been somewhere in between. In my opinion, calls for steering the model closer to the "melting pot" lose sight of the fact that in a free society, people are entitled to associate with who they choose to, wear what they want and speak whatever language they want, to within fairly broad limits. We're not going to try to force-ably de-segregate China Towns and Amish communities, are we? The only "assimilation" I think is really required is learning English, for reasons of practicality, but even that has its limitations (again, for practicality). In Quebec, French dominates and near the Mexican border, accommodation for Spanish speakers makes sense. I just don't favor heroic measures to ensure communicability.

That said, the issue of what to do about the refugees is difficult because refugees may have different goals from normal immigrants. Some may want to live permanently in their new country and IMO should generally be converted to normal immigrant status and some may want to return to their home country after it settles-down, and they should be given some temporary accommodation accordingly. The difficulty is in deciding how long "temporary" is and how much accommodation they should be given: if a normal immigrant should be expected to find a job and contribute to society, why not a "refugee"?

 

[fargoth]

That said, the issue of what to do about the refugees is difficult because refugees may have different goals from normal immigrants. Some may want to live permanently in their new country and IMO should generally be converted to normal immigrant status and some may want to return to their home country after it settles-down, and they should be given some temporary accommodation accordingly. The difficulty is in deciding how long "temporary" is and how much accommodation they should be given: if a normal immigrant should be expected to find a job and contribute to society, why not a "refugee"?

I think it is obvious these refugees are actually immigrants to Canada, the US or north European countries - They choose to come there as opposed to going to nearer locations because of the quality of life these places hold.
It's not like there is no other place for them to go to.
Since this is the case I would expect them to try to find jobs, and to be deported in case they do not follow the local law.
The big problem in Canada and the US is that the children they would have while there will be citizens, who could not be deported, thus creating a big problem in case they decide they don't respect the local authorities (as happens with some of them).

 

[DaveC426913]

Refugees are never in any position to make demands, only requests (pleas), so I can't imagine what that might be referring to.

I believe the big one is that they expect to live under Sharia Law when they settle. I think the "demands" of refugees are getting muddled with demands of already-settled immigrants.

But your mentioning of Canada being multi-cultural implies the discussion you are having/seeing is of general immigration impacts, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with refugees since refugees are essentially by definition exceptions to normal immigration policy and do not require alterations to existing policies.

Mostly it has to do with what happens when they settle, and whether they are entitled to keep their cultural lifestyle distinct and segregated. A lot of people seem to feel that Canada is a "melting pot" like America (meaning immigrants are obliged to fully integrate).

We're not going to try to force-ably de-segregate China Towns and Amish communities, are we?

Heh. Good point.

 

[HossamCFD]

I believe the big one is that they expect to live under Sharia Law when they settle.

If we're speaking about Syrian refugees then I highly doubt it, since Sharia is not implemented in Syria* apart from legislations regarding family matters (marriage, divorce, etc...) and Syrians never really seemed too bothered about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country
http://aannaim.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/syria.htm

*Unless of course you mean the areas occupied by ISIS, but that's exactly what they're fleeing from.

 

[chingel]

The numbers are indeed quite disturbing. However, I think the study should be taken with a pinch of salt. Many muslims would feel obliged to show support for Hudud (the part of Shariah that's concerned with the barbaric nonsense) so that they don't admit to themselves they contradict the Quran (in case of the punishment for theft) or authentic Hadith (in case of adultery and apostasy). It doesn't necessarily mean they want to actively implement this garbage. I've never heard of any protest in Jordan or Syria demanding that stoning should be a law, or even something relatively benign as delegalising Alcohol, which you can easily buy in both Jordan and Syria.

Giving such benefit of the doubt always amazes me. Would you also say the same thing, if the situation were reversed? If 82% of Americans would say you straight in the face, when you ask them about it, they'll say that if you become a muslim you should be killed. Would you then say, that well yes, they do say that, but how many will really start killing? Or that they felt obliged to say it (obliged? felt obliged? we are talking about killing other people). Would you take it with a pinch of salt? Would you downplay the issue or would you do your best to raise the seriousness of it?
These are the most extreme views and nobody should tolerate it or accept people like these into their countries. You can't have a civilization with views like these, that if you don't agree with me, you must be killed.

 

[HossamCFD]

Giving such benefit of the doubt always amazes me. Would you also say the same thing, if the situation were reversed? If 82% of Americans would say you straight in the face, when you ask them about it, they'll say that if you become a muslim you should be killed. Would you then say, that well yes, they do say that, but how many will really start killing? Or that they felt obliged to say it (obliged? felt obliged? we are talking about killing other people). Would you take it with a pinch of salt? Would you downplay the issue or would you do your best to raise the seriousness of it?
These are the most extreme views and nobody should tolerate it or accept people like these into their countries. You can't have a civilization with views like these, that if you don't agree with me, you must be killed.

Yes these views are extreme and barbaric and no one should tolerate them. They should be criticised and ridiculed no doubt. I am not trying to downplay the ideas, I have more reasons than most to be concerned about the punishment for apostasy. But the reason I'm giving the people the benefit of the doubt is just because I know from personal experience that there's a level of hypocrisy when they discuss these matters. This is apparent from the fact in countries like Jordan and Egypt, where the quoted poll shows majority public support for such barbaric punishments, no serious attempts have been made by the public to actually implement them. The OP asked what the refugees are demanding. I was just pointing out that the connection from the poll results to what they may actually demand is not straightforward, since they didn't even demand such laws in their country of birth.

 

[boomtrain]

...This is apparent from the fact in countries like Jordan and Egypt, where the quoted poll shows majority public support for such barbaric punishments, no serious attempts have been made by the public to actually implement them. The OP asked what the refugees are demanding. I was just pointing out that the connection from the poll results to what they may actually demand is not straightforward, since they didn't even demand such laws in their country of birth.

As Jordan and Egypt are secular dictatorships, these people weren't exactly in a position to demand such laws. When Egypt became briefly democratic, the Muslim Brotherhood took power

 

[HossamCFD]

When Egypt became briefly democratic, the Muslim Brotherhood took power

Exactly! Even when the MB ruled for a year they didn't dare to implement any of this stuff. There was always a public uproar at the slightest hint they may change any of these legislations.

 

[StatGuy2000]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada 35% of Canadian Muslims would not repudiate Al-Qaida; 62% of Canadian Muslims want "some form" of Sharia law instituted in Canada.

I can't quickly locate opinion polls about Syria on the subject, but in its neighbor Jordan, among those who say Sharia should be the law of the land: 67% favor stoning for adultery, 57% favor whipping and cutting off hands for theft, 82% favor the death penalty for converts away from Islam.

Let me start off by the saying that the Toronto Sun is the Canadian equivalent of the populist "yellow journalism" of the type represented by Fox News in the US, so it's important not to draw too many conclusions from reports from that newspaper.

At any rate, if you actually read the article, the polling firm that had reported its findings interviewed 455 Muslims in Ottawa and queried them on a number of questions about religion and society. My first question is whether or not the 455 Muslims in Ottawa is somehow truly representative of the Muslim communities across Canada (is this a representative sample). Is this population taking account of recent immigrants, or Canadian-born Muslims? The reporting doesn't make any distinction.

Second of all, how a question is phrased or worded can have a major impact on how respondents will respond. So what does it mean when 62% of Canadian Muslims (really, 62% of Muslim respondents from Ottawa) favour "some form" of Sharia law? Sharia law isn't one fixed set of law but a collection of various interpretations of jurisprudence on daily life for Muslims (much of which is identical to the old Mosaic law outlined in the Old Testament followed by the ancient Israelites, and various aspects of which are followed to this day by Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews in their own communities), some of which are restricted strictly to civil cases like marriage, divorce, and family inheritance, while others are more extensive into aspects of criminal matters. So when a respondent favours "some form" of Sharia law, it may well be the case that they could be simply supporting Muslim jurisprudence on domestic or civil matters, in much the way Orthodox Jews follow their own laws on civil matters through the rabbinical courts. We shouldn't necessarily assume that support for Sharia in Jordan would necessarily translate to specific support for, say, being in favour of stoning in Canada or the US.

 

[boomtrain]

Exactly! Even when the MB ruled for a year they didn't dare to implement any of this stuff. There was always a public uproar at the slightest hint they may change any of these legislations.

The army staged a coup, and jailed the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of those leaders are facing long jail terms or the death penalty

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

Like yourself, I live in Canada (Toronto, to be more specific), and while I am not aware of any specific hatred directed toward Syrian refugees within the city, I am alarmed by the amount of hatred directed toward these people online (even accounting for the fact of trolls merely posting to provoke reactions). I understand you want to seek more facts about what the refugees are demanding, but to me this seems to be the wrong question.

The Syrian refugees, like refugees across the world, are fleeing and seeking asylum because of war -- in the case of Syrians, the Syrian civil war where the people are caught between the brutality of the remnants of Bashar Assad's Baathist party who have committed atrocities against their political appointments, and jihadist groups like Islamic State (ISIS) who control large parts of the country and committed acts of barbarism in their attempts to enforce their own extreme interpretations of Islam, often against other Muslims who disagree with them. The only demand that I can gather is to seek safety and safe haven somewhere, anywhere, and European countries (and also countries like Canada, US, Australia, etc.) offer the greatest promise for that safety and safe haven.

BTW, it is worth pointing out that the an estimated 9 million Syrians have fled their homes, and the largest number of Syrian refugees, based on reports from UNHCR, are currently located in neighbouring countries like Turkey (with approximately 2 million), Lebanon (with over 1.1 million, something like 25% of the population of the entire country), and Jordan (with approximately 628,000). See link below.

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

By contrast, currently 150000 Syrians have declared asylum in the EU, with member states pledging to resettle another 33000 refugees, a tiny number. Canada has recently pledged to settle about 15000 Syrians. Here are some additional links.

http://syrianrefugees.eu/

It's also worth pointing out that Syria is a religiously and ethnically diverse country, and the refugees are not unanimously Muslim -- Syria has historically had a large Christian minority (including an Armenian community, descended from those who have fled the Armenian genocide in what is now Turkey back in the early 20th century), as well as a community of Druzes (a unique faith combining Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, with communities in Syria, Lebanon, and northern Israel). There is little doubt that many of the refugees would include members of these communities.

 

[HossamCFD]

The army staged a coup, and jailed the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of those leaders are facing long jail terms or the death penalty

The army staged a coup after millions took to the streets, and I wouldn't support the hundreds of politically charged death sentences if I were you. Anyway, none of that was because the MB tried to pass a law in favour of stoning the adulterer for example, so I don't know really what are you disputing at this point. I have to stop derailing the thread off topic.

 

[fargoth]

Exactly! Even when the MB ruled for a year they didn't dare to implement any of this stuff. There was always a public uproar at the slightest hint they may change any of these legislations.

In a speech Mohamed Morsi gave in Cairo on May 13, 2012 he declared: “The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.” Then, Morsi proclaims “This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic sharia [law].” He adds: “I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the current Egyptian constitution], Allah willing, the text will truly reflect sharia law, as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts. Rejoice and rest assured that these people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic sharia as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else.”

He than actually did what he said he'd do.
Just before the referendum that made the draft of the constitution into the real thing, Slate reports
"for years, Islamists had argued that Article 2 of the prerevolution constitution, which made “the principles of Islamic law the main source of legislation,” wasn’t strong enough. The new constitution preserves the old language, but now contains a new article, that defines the “principles of Shariah” in the very strict terms of Muslim Sunni jurisprudence."
...
"
And though Article 81 of the new constitution does declare that “citizens rights and freedoms are inalienable and cannot be suspended or reduced,” it then goes on to say that these freedoms can only be practiced “as long as they don’t contradict the principles set out in the section on state and society in this constitution.” This is a long way of saying that Egyptians are free, as long as they don’t violate the government’s interpretation of Islamic law.

Similarly, whereas the old constitution contained an article prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender (among other things), the new constitution removes any mention of women as a protected class. Instead, it views women primarily as mothers (or potential mothers), declaring in Article 10 that the state will help “reconcile the responsibilities of the woman toward her family and her public work.” And though the constitution contains the requisite language guaranteeing freedom of speech, it places religiously defined limits on that speech. For example, Article 44 prohibits anyone from insulting prophets of the Abrahamic faiths, leaving undefined what precisely constitutes an “insult.” And Article 48, which regulates freedom of the press, says that the press is free only as long as it doesn’t contradict the principles on which the state and society are based—meaning the principles of Shariah."
...
"in a nationally-representative survey conducted by one of the authors in November 2011, 67 percent of the more than 1,500 Egyptians polled disapproved of the idea of having a female president (with 30 percent believing women were unsuited for any public position); 80 percent believed the Egyptian government should set up a council of religious scholars to ensure that law conforms to the Shariah; and 75 percent approved of the idea that religious authorities should be allowed to censor the media."

 

[boomtrain]

I wouldn't support the hundreds of politically charged death sentences if I were you.

What gave you the impression that I support politically charged death sentences? Describing recent history isn't the same thing as endorsing it.

Anyway, none of that was because the MB tried to pass a law in favour of stoning the adulterer for example, so I don't know really what are you disputing at this point. I have to stop derailing the thread off topic.

I'm still mostly disputing your assertion that, since Jordan and Egypt don't currently have shariah law, Jordanians and Egyptians aren't in favour of shariah law. Jordan and Egypt are dictatorships. Dictatorships that are majority Muslim may not have shariah law on their books, but it's very possibly what a large fraction of their citizens want. It's completely reasonable to be concerned with the idea that, once citizens of a prosperous democracy, the 800 000 refugees that Germany has pledged to take in will still want shariah law. There may be a bit of a culture clash.

 

[HossamCFD]

...will still want shariah law. There may be a bit of a culture clash.

There's definitely going to be a lot of culture clash. Shariah is a very broad term that people use to mean different things and yes there will be demands along those lines (for instance the availability of slaughtered meat). My point is there are a lot of things to worry about, demanding Hudud punishments should be the least on this list, as they would've demanded them in Syria. Yes it was a dictatorship but people are known to protest. In fact that's how the civil war started, but the protests were demanding democracy and political reform, not death for the apostates.

In a speech Mohamed Morsi gave in Cairo on May 13, 2012 he declared:...

I have no doubt that the MB wanted to implement as much of the islamic law as they can. The constitution passed in 2012 as Egyptians never voted no for any constitution referendum. They voted yes for a newer constitution in 2014 (with a much higher majority than Moris's 2012 constitution) that undid all the things you talked about and gave more power to the army. Limiting the interpretation of Shariah to Sunni jurisprudence is hardly significant in a country where most muslims are Sunni. And insulting Abrahamic faiths has always been illegal in Egypt, whether is was stated in the constitution or not.Back to my point which started this whole thing; namely, that poll results should be taken with a pinch of salt. The poll states that 74% of Egyptians favour making Shariah the law of the land, 81% of whom favoured implemented the stoning punishment (and 86% were for death penalty for leaving islam). With Islamists controlling the parliament and the presidency (at different times) and with such public support you would've thought it's only natural to actually implement stoning and capital punishment for apostasy. This never happened or even brought up at any legal level. What instead happened is that the MB couldn't even put restrictions on night clubs or ban Alcohol, among the things they preached about changing.

 

[fargoth]

They voted yes for a newer constitution in 2014 (with a much higher majority than Moris's 2012 constitution) that undid all the things you talked about and gave more power to the army.

The 2014 referendum's results are not surprising considering Egypt is pretty much back to the democratic state it was under Mubarak (who had more than 90% approval up until 2010).
States ruled by a dictatorship do not necessarily reflect the wants of the state's population.
They did not have a lot of time at the reigns, but given enough time, the MB might have taken Egypt in the direction of Saudi Arabia... if only they were able to lift the economy.

 

[HossamCFD]

The 2014 referendum's results are not surprising considering Egypt is pretty much back to the democratic state it was under Mubarak (who had more than 90% approval up until 2010).
States ruled by a dictatorship do not necessarily reflect the wants of the state's population.

I don't disagree. I was just saying that approving Morsi's constitution doesn't mean much. They approved the 2011 constitutional reform by the military council and the 2005 constitutional reform under Mubarak. I'm not not aware of anytime Egyptians voted no for a constitution.

They did not have a lot of time at the reigns, but given enough time, the MB might have taken Egypt in the direction of Saudi Arabia... if only they were able to lift the economy.

Again, my point is if the polls are to be taken at face value, this shouldn't have been difficult. Instead after a year of their rule, millions took to the streets to oppose them. Their islamic agenda is one of the reasons along with the economical problems.

 

[mheslep]

The numbers are indeed quite disturbing. However, I think the study should be taken with a pinch of salt. Many muslims would feel obliged to show support for Hudud (the part of Shariah that's concerned with the barbaric nonsense) so that they don't admit to themselves they contradict the Quran (in case of the punishment for theft) or authentic Hadith (in case of adultery and apostasy). It doesn't necessarily mean they want to actively implement this garbage. I've never heard of any protest in Jordan or Syria demanding that stoning should be a law, or even something relatively benign as delegalising Alcohol, which you can easily buy in both Jordan and Syria.

Thanks for your take that there may be inconsistency between the answer Muslims give to imprecise pollster questions and actual action given the chance. I hope this is the case, and there are certainly examples on other polls, other subjects where the polls proved wrong. While keeping that in mind, I'm inclined to think this Muslim opinion poll is reasonably correct. After events like papa Assad's salting-of-the-earth destruction of Hama in Syria after the Islamic uprising there, a lack of public protest means little. So too elsewhere in ME.

There is a collection of photos taken over time of the annual graduating class of Cairo U which I think is iconic. Decades ago women in the class wore modest but non-Islamic dress. Over time this has changed, so that recently no woman appears without Burma and face cover.

 

[HossamCFD]

There is a collection of photos taken over time of the annual graduating class of Cairo U which I think is iconic. Decades ago women in the class wore modest but non-Islamic dress. Over time this has changed, so that recently no woman goes without Burma and face cover.

Yes I've witnessed that unfortunate change gradually during my life time. Now most women wear the Hijab (head scarf), and those who don't are normally assumed to be christians. The full face cover is mostly banned in universities though (I think, it was the case when I was in uni anyway).

 

[mheslep]

The doomed Egyptian Morsi is a example of conflicting actions. The same guy that said as President that he Koran is our constitution and jihad is our path came to the U.S. in the late 70s, recvd a PHd in materials science from USC and taught at several U.S. colleges, all without demanding his female students cover their faces. It's not clear to me what Morsi would have done with, say, 50 000 Morsis in S. CA.

 

[DaveC426913]

Like yourself, I live in Canada (Toronto, to be more specific),

Me too. South West corner.

and while I am not aware of any specific hatred directed toward Syrian refugees within the city, I am alarmed by the amount of hatred directed toward these people online (even accounting for the fact of trolls merely posting to provoke reactions).

Truth be told, it is primarily via Facebook. But these are my friends**- and all Ontarians. (although, now that I think of it, the fear mongers are all from smaller towns, whereas the compassionists are city folk ...)

**people I know well, not strangers. All the more shocking to me that they are so intolerant.