But is it?
There is no question at all that certain aspects of Islam are incompatible with western concepts and even western laws. The spectrum of adherence to some of those things is very broad.
But it is concerning, and should be. If one does even perfunctory research into attitudes of Muslims about some of those concepts and values, one finds that adherence to the notion of “jihad” as “conquest of the infidel” is not universal, but it’s very common among Muslims. So is the concept of mandatory adherence to Sharia. There are geographical and ethnic differences that can be quite stark at times, which, of course, makes it all the more complicated.
But it is not as if some of the concepts we can and should find very concerning aren’t inherent to Islam, because they are. The degree to which they vary among different peoples depends, e.g., on which Islamic scholar one accepts, which Islamic preacher is most influential with various of them, and even how they understand the Koran and other writings they consider sacred. More specifically, it can depend on which part of internally contradictory parts of the Koran one believes supersedes the other. One encourages violent jihad against “infidels” and the other doesn’t.
So this is not comparable to, say, my not wanting Baptists in my neighborhood because I’m Catholic and just don’t like Baptists because they’re Baptists. It is no hazard to me if my neighbor believes only in baptism by immersion. With Muslim immigration, it’s a matter of having a concern about Muslim influx into a country with whose principles most would disagree theoretically, some would want to change politically, and some would want to change through violence if necessary. Trouble is, we don’t know which ones are which, and even if we know “X” doesn’t accept the more violent view, there’s no certainty his son won’t, because Islam broadly speaking, will support either view. And we have seen occasions where that was exactly the case.
I realize there has been a lot of emphasis on not being prejudiced, etc, in our society; largely a consequence of the civil rights campaigns relative to blacks in America. That campaign for civil rights was exactly the right thing. But in our desire to not seem prejudiced, we need to also consider whether we might endanger our neighbor if we carry it to extremes. Sure, I have every moral right to walk down the streets of Baghdad with a Christian cross hanging from my neck, as dangerous as that might be to me. But I have no right to impose the hazard on another.
There was a time not so very long ago that anyone who believed in the violent overthrow of this government was not allowed into this country. That made entirely good sense. It got a little less certain if we would allow no avowed communist into this country on the assumption that communism, of its very nature, stands for the violent (if necessary) overthrow of representative government and a market system. But we excluded avowed communists all the same because the concept is inherent to communism as understood in the 20th Century. Would that have perhaps excluded people who had no intention of violently overthrowing the government of the U.S but otherwise adhered to Communism? Probably. But the hazard of allowing in people who adhered to all but one part of the communist doctrine based solely on their word that they did, was deemed too great.
Unless we are to throw all cautions to the wind as relates to Muslims entering this country (and many would advocate that) then the government has decisions to make regarding how to allow some, but not all, immigration of people who adhere to Islam.
It’s just as wrong to blind oneself to an obvious hazard as it is to assume that one presents a hazard solely because his religion is different from mine. And it’s wrong because the hazard does not only affect me. It affects others as well.