This AP profile of a "resistance fighter" in Iraq spells out why exactly he is resisting. Contrary to the beliefs (stated in the story) of American analysts that most of the resistance comes from supporters of Saddam, the Iraqi Muslim cleric Abdel Jawad Mohammed Safo says that "he believes many of the resistance fighters are young and deeply religious."
Says Sheikh Abdel: "The former regime in Iraq is like a book that has been closed. It's over. Most acts of (resistance) in the country stem from religious reasons. A Muslim doesn't accept a foreigner and a nonbeliever to rule over him."
Indeed. Islamic law forbids non-Muslims to hold authority over Muslims. In light of that, what might Ahmed Hassan Ibrahim, the subject of the story (who was killed while firing rocket-propelled grenades at American troops), have thought of a democracy set up by those foreigners and nonbelievers? What might he have thought of a government that did not obey Islamic law? Was it "cultural condescension" that made him oppose the nascent Iraqi democracy?
" A Muslim doesn't accept a foreigner and a non-believer to rule over him."
I accept that statement at face value. I don't quibble with it becuase I can't refute it.
If that statement is true and a deeply held religious belief, then why in the hell would any right thinking Western country allow immigration from any Muslim country? It doesn't make sense. But it does go a long way toward explaining why Muslims refuse to assimilate when they reach western society.