Thinking through it

IMO, the only thing that can be done is to take every application for immigration as a single case. To apply a blanket standard to every individual is wrong-headed.

Where is there any proof that ordinary Muslims in American are being threatened with their lives if they resist their leaders? Are there polls that bear this out? Underground reporting from qualified sources?

The only long-term solution is to outbreed them.

I think Rod has identified a genuine problem.
To the extent that one is a lukewarm Muslim, or a "live and let live, my faith is a private matter" Muslim, he is probably part of the "silent majority" (at least I hope it's a majority) of moderates who lack the "passionate intensity" to stand up to the Islamists.
To an Islamist, separation of church and state is not permissible, and Muslims are charged with waging jihad until the whole world has become Muslim (or been destroyed in the attempt).
Paul Berman, in discussing Sayyid Qutb, related that Qutb saw the greatest threat to the Muslim world coming from precisely those liberal democratic values that would "privatize" faith and inaugurate separation of Church and State in the Muslim world.
It seems to me that the only Muslims who stand a chance of successfully opposing the Islamists are the passionate liberal Muslims like Irshad Manji and the "apostate" former Muslims like Ayyan Hirsi Ali.
And it seems to me that it is incumbent on those who believe in liberal (small d) democracy to support these passionate Muslims, and keep them from being marginalized by those who would accuse them of being "attention seeking" or crazy, or unserious, or racist, or self-hating, etc.

Part of what must happen is to let modernity (science, culture, arts -- and not all western!) continue to spread throughout Islamic countries. Their fundamentalism is a push-back against the world of today just like that of other faiths and cultures -- but their culture has only begun that journey. Obviously, the world is such that they have not opted to go back into the woodwork as did the anti-Darwin Christians after Scopes, but in the end reality will win out. (Hey, I claim the right to be at least as optimistic as others seem to be pessimistic!) One thing we should refrain from as much as possible is appearing to threaten their culture militarily. They're human and tend to react much as we have the habit of doing -- by hardening their stance and trying to rattle sabers as loudly as those threatening them. Unfortunately, many have fallen into the trap, doing exactly as OBL hopes. ("If we back down, we'll give them a victory and prove we don't have the stomach for a fight..." etc.) Others may wish to out-bin-laden OBL, I would urge that we don't. There are other more effective approaches. Some may seem weak and sissified to the nuke-em-now or nuke-em-later crowd, but it might be worthwhile to reflect on what Jesus and Ghandi said about how to treat one's enemies. They may have been on to something.

ChuckDFW writes: what must happen is to let modernity (science, culture, arts -- and not all western!) continue to spread throughout Islamic countries. ChuckDFW, even if your dream came true and Muslims became educated and modern, they would simply stop breeding. This is no solution, because somebody else will always breed. It's Darwin's law. The very reason the Muslims are breeding is because they are so fundamentalist. The real problem is not Muslims. It's us. We won't breed at replacement. They will.

Rod: "What particularly concerns me is that the degree to which Muslims are adapted to living and accepting Western liberal democracy and pluralism correlates with the degree to which they are alienated from normative Islam." I would say alienation from "normative Islam" is a positive thing, just like alienation from a gang of street thugs is good. It will hopefully help many of them on their way to conversion to Christianity.

I think, in fact, what liberals from the U.S. want to do is precisely what Sayyid Qutb feared they wanted to do, which is to privatize Islam and limit its practice to the private sphere and spread the idea of separation of Church and State. I think Sayyid Qutb was a monstrous fanatic (he preached total war on infidels). I also think that he was right: that (to use the Pope's formulation) if Islam were to become Westernized, it would be alien to itself. He very clearly saw what Islam was up against.

the beginning statement could be applied to the way in which we treat low-income transplants from one city who goto another seeking a way out of a crime filled neighborhood. If you grow up in a crime ridden neighborhood, and move to an new place where you have no roots all you have to fall back on is the survival skills of your old heritage.
More needs to be done not only for the immigrant groups but also for those who immigrate from the inner-city seeking a better life to help them find their roots in a new place as productive citizens that can be more than people who came from a ghetto. Often people who have only one vision of themself, and who have little formal job skills are stuck in a cycle of anti-social surivalism and living day to day no matter where they go. Breaking this cycle by involving them in the local church-run work efforts or other social service efforts could be a key way not only to show the welcome of the community for the new person, but also to show them the confidence of the neighborhood in the ability of the immigrant to make something of themself and become more than their present poverty. It's as simple as working at a soup kitchen, its as simple as running a Clothes for Careers drive, its as simple as job skills training. These services and many more in tandem go a long way to breaking down barriers between communities and building up the strength of the community as a whole.