Why won't Islamic lands take refugees?

One aspect of the Syrian "refugee" business that perplexes me is that the "refugees" are trying to leave their culture, their language, their religion, etc., and go to the West. Islamic countries are taking none of these "refugees."

Why aren't Islamic countries taking the vast majority of these "refugees"? Egypt (population 90 million) is closer to Syria than Europe, and ought to be able to absorb half a million "refugees."

It would be much easier for them to vet these "refugees" too. Countries in Europe or North America don't have databases on these people. We don't speak Arabic and are not steeped in their culture. They are undocumented and can claim to be anything. There is no way of checking or verifying what they say.

Another bothersome aspect is that the demographics of the "refugees" is different from Syria's population. "Half" or more of the "refugees" are young males. Where are the old people, the young females, the "empty nesters," etc.? This smacks of an invasion more than an exodus from a war-torn land. I hope someone can explain all this, because it seems ominous to me.

The jihadists seek to resume the Crusades, the wars between Muslims and non-Muslims, mostly Christians. The last Crusade ended with the Battle of Vienna (begun on Sept. 11, 1683) and the peace treaty which resulted.

Peter G. Malone

St. Charles