"We have functional examples in the USA, in UK, France, Germany, Spain and other countries, where Muslims live for generations without proclaiming Holy Wars."

It is surprising that you advance those examples as evidence that Muslims can adapt to living in the West. In the U.S.A., our security authorities are constantly tracking and frequently uncovering jihadist conspiracies. The same is true in the U.K. Terrible jihadist bombings have occurred in the U.K. and Spain. Sharia agitation is active in the U.S.A., U.K., and France. You seem to argue that because the undesirable activities are the activities of "extremists," the populations as a whole are acceptable. I disagree. The extremists are representative of the populations from which they spring. They are animated by the population's ideals, religion, and grievances, motivated by the population's welfare, and protected by the population's kinship and associational networks. They are the soldiers of the populations that give birth to them. Islamic policy should be based on the representativity of jihadists, not on the illusion that they are isolated. If the extremists are unable to compromise, as you say, that means the populations are unable to compromise.

Thanks to Emir Kappert for the delightful and ingenious response below! But what does it demonstrate? First, that the chasm of historic mutual injury between the Christian and Islamic worlds is so broad that it can scarcely be bridged by sham integration of Muslims into secularized Western societies controlled by managerial bureaucracies; and second, that Western societies have enough troubles negotiating internal disputes -- religious, economic, national, ethnic, and ideological in nature -- and need not add to their menu the anguish of struggling with determined ancient enemies within their own borders. Those internal disputes are dealt with in a variety of ways. The dispute with the Islamic world may be dealt with in a variety of ways. In general, disputes between Western societies and Muslims will be best managed by ending Muslim immigration and encouraging Muslim emigration, as well as suppressing Islamic activism at all levels. Other social conflicts may be dealt with by finding compromises and accommodations that will become part of the fabric of viable societies. It is impossible to incorporate Islam on such terms, unless there are no Muslim communities. As long as there are Muslim communities in the West, the elements of Holy War against Westerners are present. If you say, "As long as there are Christians in the West, the elements of Holy War against secularists or among Christians are present," I will say that may be so, but that is the West's historic nature, and the West has invented many different ways of mitigating such conflicts.

Social Responsibility is a good thing, but like any good thing it can be perverted and abused. For example, refusing to tell the truth to protect the reputation of those we care for defeats the purposes of legal fact-finding and political debate. Similarly, suppressing the speech of those whose truth we don't want to hear defeats the purpose of political discussion and other reality-based activities.

For speech to be useful, and to protect us from acting on the basis of lies and falsehoods, there needs to be a substantial zone of protection around even untrue and inflammatory speech. Without that zone of protection, we lose the benefit of knowing the truth, because truth will be withheld to avoid the consequences of speech that someone deems untrue and inflammatory. This "zone of protection" seems to be an alien concept to most Europeans except for the classical liberals of the kind that publish and read The Brussels Journal.

You can't permit society to be destroyed by immoral, corrosive, seditious speech, and you can't let it be destroyed by nipping unpopular truths in the bud. Social Responsibility requires finding the right balance in the circumstances.

To some, for example, to question whether Muslims belong in the West at all is to engage in corrosive, inflammatory speech that threatens to destroy society. The answer to that is: (1) that Muslims do not belong in Western societies, therefore it does not threaten society to question whether they belong in it; and (2) to suppress the truth of the threat Muslims pose to Western societies is potentially fatal to those societies. For leftists to argue that whether Muslims belong in the West cannot be discussed because it is too corrosive and inflammatory to do so begs the question whether they belong, and in fact it assumes that they do. Not only that, it overlooks the massive evidence that they do not belong (e.g., 1400 years of intercivilizational warfare; the destruction of Christian civilization in Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia; the oppression of the Balkans for several hundred years; the oppression of Spain for several hundred years; sharia agitation, rioting, and crimes against non-Muslims by Muslim immigrants in Western countries; the Koran; the death penalty for converting to other religions; Islam's imperviousness to criticism; the civilizational retardation of the Muslim world; etc.).

On the other side of the question, we do not merely assume that Muslims do not belong in the West, begging the question whether they do. Rather, we draw the conclusion that they do not based on our ongoing interpretation of the evidence, which conclusion can be revised if the evidence (or a more persuasive interpretation of the evidence) requires it.

I totally approve of your analysis. You are quite right when saying the Germans never valued freedom of speech, which may be a sad fact but a fact nonetheless. There was no proper German Enlightenment, nor was there any significant classical liberal tradition in Germany, although Austria produced Friedrich Hayek, and many ordoliberals were from a German-speaking background. However, as a rule of thumb, the concept of freedom of speech is something relatively new to Germany, and was more or less grafted onto it as of the end of WWII. I am among those who feel it did not take root so easily as expected. Democracy has never been one of Germany's specialties throughout its long history, albeit I suspect one may object to my statement by positing some kind of democracy in that Kurfürsten were generally elected by select assemblies, however, that would be wide off the mark.

I suggest that Frau Ritter should reflect upon her behaviour, and perhaps amend her decision, although I feel the case of the multi-culti establishment is quite hopeless.

... but I have read the holy book of islam and I have read the pamphlet of the sick, power-mad leader of nazi Germany. And if they aren't alike, then there are no two books in the world that are.