The Muslim Ban was Never about Banning Islam

The “Muslim Ban” was never about banning Islam. Instead, it is based on this:

Not all Muslim’s are radical Islamic terrorists,

 but all radical Islamic terrorists are Muslim.

The idea was to temporarily ban all Muslim immigration until a plan for extreme vetting could be developed. Once it was developed, Trump believed he could keep America secure for the free and peaceful practice of all religions.

Trump, of course, has, at the behest of GOP advisors such as Rudi Giuliani, softened his position on the Muslim Ban. Trump has opted for a ban on specific terrorist hotbeds. This he has done despite the reality that radicalization takes place even where cells are not active. As Trump’s critics have noted, Saudi Arabia radicalized three quarters  of the original 9/11 terrorists and yet Saudi Arabia is not among the banned nations.

Perhaps the most damning criticism of Trump’s immigration ban is that we have, so far, no proof, logically deductive proof or experiential proof, that the ban is effective in any way.

Experience is certainly not the teacher anyone wants in this matter. If there aren’t attacks, we won’t know if it’s because of the ban, and no one wants proof that the ban did not work.

This leaves logical proof. This proof will come down to Trump’s definition of “extreme vetting.” If it is up to the Obama sect of the American left, the vetting will be utterly useless and ineffective. This is because the media have dwarfed the American intellect. Americans seemingly can’t have an adult discussion about liberty and religious practice because they are slaves to glittering generalities about the mythical rights of sacred cows.

The real questions are will the vetting go far enough to be effective? Beyond whether or not the vetting could be easily evaded by would-be terrorists, is the goal of the vetting itself sound?

Logically, if Trump can effectively vet the desire to practice the more radical elements of Sharia, such as punishing Muslims who convert to Christianity with death, he can stave off the horrible radicalism of terrorist attacks.

Americans have not had a national conversation about where Islam oversteps the bounds of Liberty to which all Americans are bound.

Each religion deserves its own discussion. Although Islam, Conservative Christianity and Orthodox Judaism agree that homosexuality is not God’s will, it’s rare that a single discussion will apply to many religions at once. Usually, each religion needs a unique discussion. Is animal sacrifice acceptable as part of the voodoo religions of the West Indies? Is refusing medical treatment for terminally ill children acceptable because it is part of the religion of the Jehovah witnesses? Is the use of illegal hallucinogens permissible as part of the Sioux mystical rites?

In the same way we need to squarely face the religious practices of certain schools of Islam, especially as these impact the rights of others. Should we ban burqas? Do we refuse immigration to those who believe it is a religious virtue to beat their wives? What about honor killings or female genital mutilation? Should our foreign policy discourage the murder of those who want to practice religious freedom and escape Islam? All of these are important questions that adults need to discuss. We cannot achieve peaceful religious freedom for all if we don’t ask these questions.

Some believe that all Islam is an ideological poison. That’s not clear from recent history. During much of the post World War II period Islam and the West co-exited reasonably well.

Even recent history shows that the United States has the potential for significant and strong bonds of friendship with majority Muslim states. King Abdullah II of Jordan is one such example. The remarkable events surrounding Egypt’s rejection of the radical Muslim Brotherhood are further examples of the capacity of Islam to co-exist with the West.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it “reforming” Islam. We in the West need only call it “extreme vetting.” Together we need to talk about the elements of Sharia law that are elements of religious choice and the others that are part of a radical ideology inconsistent with the liberties, the natural liberties of choice and religious freedom the United States of America represents. If we can take the radical out of radical Islam we have defeated radical Islamic terrorism before it has begun.

But where are we today? We can’t honestly discuss the term “Muslim Ban.” Perhaps part of the reason is the actual meaning of the phrase requires asking other questions too subtle for intellectual children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *