“In light of [the] data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis… Let’s adapt Trump’s plan and put a moratorium on Sunni immigration.”
This policy discussion by Islamic historian Timothy Furnish may seem to run counter to the position of those of us who believe a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the heck is going on” is the proper approach, but it is at the very least a serious attempt to undergird Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban with factual and functional analysis. Serious discussion leads to serious policy, and serious results. Let’s have this discussion.
“An Islamic Historian’s Response to Donald Trump’s Proposed Muslim Immigration Ban”, by Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, May 13, 2016:
Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslim immigration to the US, floated last December, provoked a predictable firestorm of criticism both domestically and abroad, and recently the presumptive Republican nominee for President has moved to moderate his stance.
Many if not most on the Left have not only dismissed his idea out-0f-hand, but condemned it as “racist,” while many on the Right support it. Contra the political extremes of both Left and Right, however, I think Trump has a point, if the plan were fine-tuned. Some Muslims should probably be banned (which almost certainly would be legal), but not all; and to differentiate those categories requires honest research and analysis, not emoting and propaganda.
The starting point for this evaluation is whether adherents of the world’s second-largest faith are more prone to violence than those of other religions.
Far too many liberals, and most Muslims of course, vehemently deny any such connection. But facts are stubborn things.
Of the 59 groups currently on the US State Department foreign terrorist list, 41, or 69%, are Muslim. Every single one of the 82 groups on the United Arab Emirates’ terrorist list is Islamic. (Does that make the UAE “racist” one wonders?) There are 104 groups on the database of the University of Chicago Project on Security & Terrorism (CPOST), which tracks terrorism between 1982 and 2015; at least 80 of the groups therein, or 77%, are Muslim. Twenty-one of the top 25 groups whose members killed people in that same time-frame are Muslim. Also, in that 33-year period, suicide attacks by Muslims far outnumber those Christians, by 300:1. Yes, there was exactly one suicide attack by a Christian in the 33 years that CPOST has tracked the data.
For more historical analysis of this topic, may I suggest my latest book Sects, Lies, and the Caliphate, as well as anything written by Raymond Ibrahim—in particular “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” and “ ‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More Bloodthirsty than Quran.”
The historical and empirical evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: Islam promotes violence against those not in its club (which, yes, often includes those who claim to be Muslims, as well) far more than any other belief system does against non-adherents.
But as the howls of “Islamophobia” begin to rise, let me add that not all branches of Islam are equally culpable for this global problem.
As I argue at length in my aforementioned book (especially pp. 193-209), it is primarily Sunnism—the largest branch, alas—that promotes a literalist reading and application of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (the alleged sayings and practices of Islam’s founder, Muhammad). This means that canonical Islamic endorsement of beheading, stoning, and violent jihad, inter alia, must apply across space and time; they are not subject to, say, allegorical interpretation or chronological consignment to the 7th century AD.
And such Sunni literalism has sunk deep roots: majorities of Muslims in many countries (according to Pew empirical data) support stoning for adultery and execution for “apostasy” (converting from Islam to another religion). This is why I said on a recent TV special that ISIS is indeed Islamic, and why it is so difficult for other Muslims to actually delegitimize it.
However, wooden and, frankly, brutal Sunni literalism—which holds sway not only in terrorist groups but also in broader movements like Saudi Wahhabism and South Asian Deobandism—it is not the only understanding of Islam.
There are minority sects of Islam which do not take the Qur’an 100% literally and are thereby not yoked to slavish imitation of the texts, with all their problematic repercussions: the Ahmadis of South Asia; the Isma’ilis, the second-largest Shi`a sect; the syncretistic Alawis and Druze of Syria and Lebanon; many Sufi, or Islamic mystical, orders (which are actually not sects so much as, in a sense, charismatic Muslims); and, believe it or not, the Twelvers—the Shi`is of Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Azerbaijan—who unlike the Sunnis never abandoned ta`wil, or “(allegorical) interpretation” of the Islamic texts.
All of these groups are, to varying degrees, persecuted by Sunnis in most places for their heterodox—if not downright heretical—views, at least from the Sunni perspective.
Note, I am not saying all sects are peaceful and Sunnis are always vicious. What I am saying is that Sunnis and their theology are far more often the problem, because a literal understanding of Qur’an and Hadiths is the only one allowed therein; sects, even Twelver Shi`is, allow for much more leeway in interpretation.
Consider: only two of the groups on the US State Department list adduced earlier are Twelver Shi`i; ditto for the CPOST terrorist list. There are no examples of Ahmadi, Isma’ili or Alawi terrorists (although Alawis, in the guise of the al-Assad regime, do hold on brutally to power—largely in order to stave off the inevitable religicide that would ensue were they to lose to the Syrian Sunni jihadists). Twelver Shi`i Iran is a state sponsor of mainly Sunni terror, but in order to geopolitically hobble its enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, not out of Twelver theological imperatives. Sufis can and have been violent in the past and today (they fight Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia), but only one Sufi group—Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshbandi, which works with ISIS—is terrorist today.
In light of this data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis.
But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite.
Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. In April of this year another 451 Syrians were brought in, almost all Sunni. (And not being covered in this article is the criminally-low number of Christians being admitted—under 1%.)
Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred—not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil….
Jaladhi says
There should be a total ban on all Muslim immigration. It’s not just the Sunnis who are murderous, its all Muslim sects Shia, Sufis and others who just as murderous as Sunnis. Just look at the fights going on in middle east and elsewhere, where do you find any peaceful Muslim. Actually peaceful Muslim is an oxymoron!
blitz2b says
It is so true, in fact the vermin of the generations that follow become even more potent than the ones that bred them.
Conversions from dormant Islamic sects to the more brutal one from where sunni radicalization occurs must be happening almost everyday.
Once one discovers his “Muslim victimization” happening in the west and the “pseudo-suffering” of Pallywood production in Palestine, it sets off a trigger that the violent unforgiving Allah seeths and sanctions divine revenge.
Islam is a mind virus and only a total detox in the form of denouncement of this ideology will work to eradicate this poison from the Muslim mind. Condoning other less radical sects of this cult is just as disastrous.
Bob says
Jaladhi – keep looking over your shoulder in case the peace-loving Muslims get you!
duh_swami says
Question…Why does the US need any immigration at all…From 1924 till 1965 there was zero immigration and zero Islamic terror attacks…You can choose to share space with a hornets nest, but I don’t recommend it…
Keys says
Why does the US need immigration at all ?
Relatively low birth rate due to many factors.
linnte says
Isn’t THAT low birth rate what we have been striving for? To “save” the environment and lessen the impact so third world countries can share in our abundance of resources? I thought that was the goal anyway. Now”they” want to increase OUR population so OUR resources are diminished. Rediculous!
vicki says
I remember being preached to by leftist leaning teachers as a high school student, 2 kids per family!
linnte says
Exactly Vicki! On this alone, we should protest the influx of immigrants! My youngest son has four kids and even his good friends derided him about not sticking to the 2kid limit! Let’s remind people about this constantly!
duh_swami says
Donald says he has wonderful Muslim friends who agree with him about finding out what is going on…Donald has no Muslim friends…Donald is delusional…
blitz2b says
No Donald is an up and coming politician… The way CNN condemns Trump for trivial ” lies” but makes opaque the lies and failings of Hillary’s past, goes to show the leftist media’s desire for a third Obama term in her.
Ethel Mertz says
How the hell do you know???
Stephen says
Just more liberal BS under the cover of facts I personally prefer their “lets do it for the children” crap.
Angemon says
Why, then, do they oppress women, persecute religious minorities, hang gays from construction cranes and practice (literally, not figuratively) “an eye for an eye”?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/iran-gouge-mans-eye-eye-eye-punishment-1551925
celticwarriorcanada says
They both hate Jews and Christians ! But from a personal perspective ( having done business with and been in many of their homes ) Shias and Druze were usually friendly , often Tipped very Generously ! and treated me like a human and even seemed to respect their wives and daughters . Sunnis on the other hand were a different story. One of their little girls , probably 5 years old asked me one day if I was a kuffer! and then was yelled and screamed at by her brother . They (sunni costumers) were usually rude, very demanding and always showed their tempers and Never Tipped. Now all of this was in A North American Context ! Its obviously different in Iran and Lebanon !!! P.S. I actually liked the Elderly Shia and Druze Men ! But could not stomach especially The Young Arrogant Sunni men !
Jack Diamond says
Khomeini seems to have taken Islam pretty damn literally and his credentials are impeccable:
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.
“But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.
“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
The search for a politically acceptable way to ban Muslims goes on. Some Muslims can be banned but not all Muslims because only some Muslims are a statistical threat? Really, people are going to buy it’s not “bigotry” because we don’t ban all Muslims, just the 85% of whom are Sunni, because they take Islam literally? Because we let in Ahmadis and Druze and call them Muslims? Because we let in whirling dervishes and Hizballah agents? Has it worked so far trying to explain what is wrong with literal Islam? 99.9% of Sunnis deny they or Islam have anything to do with “terrorism” or with those groups exploding things and killing people. The mainstream media and academic and political know-it-alls happily agree. Then you have to explain that jihad (which is obligatory) takes many other forms than just exploding things and that all believing Muslims have to want Allah’s laws, with all that implies for co-existing and free societies.
Don’t see how this works out better than keeping it simple and banning all Muslims.
RodSerling says
Good points Jack. I’m really surprised at Furnish. With his claims of expertise and years of study of Islam, including Shia Twelver Islam, he ought to know better. The Shia Twelver Islam implemented in Iran includes death penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery; permits “marriage” of adult males to child brides, and so on. The Iranian regime supports Hizballah in Lebanon and Shia militias in Iraq, and is fundamentally hostile toward the West. Moreover, the majority of Iranian Muslims (83%) want sharia as implemented in Iran. 96% of Iranian parliamentarians agree with the death penalty for apostasy.
Furnish’s claim that these other non-Sunni sects do not interpret Islamic texts “literally” sounds like he is taking the usual theoretical descriptions of Sunni vs. Shia interpretations too seriously. In reality, they end up with most of the same laws and practices, and the same hostility toward non-Muslims. I’ve seen data indicating that Ahmadis are as supportive (or more supportive) than Muslims in general on punishments like death for apostasy or stoning of adulterers. And of all the claims that I’ve read/heard over the years, even among the counterjihad, about Ahmadis and Ismailis being peaceful and rejecting violent jihad, no one as far as I’ve seen has ever presented evidence that these apologetic claims are actually true, either in terms of authoritative doctrine specific to those sects or in terms of percentages of followers holding specific opinions.
Another dubious assumption: the idea that a “non-literal” interpretation will somehow be better or more safe than a literal one. This assumption is completely untested. Why can’t a non-literal interpretation be worse than a literal one? To assume a non-literal interpretation is better (in terms of the effect on us non-Muslims) seems to require additional assumptions, i.e., that there is some positive source of influence in or among these Muslim populations that will counter Islam’s fundamental hostility toward those who do not want to live under its rule. In other words, if Muslims, when not following Islam to the letter, are “secretly” just like Westerners, then this amicable worldview and set of attitudes will sway a non-literal interpretation in a direction that is favorable or at least harmless to non-Muslims on the receiving end of its implementation. There’s no evidence for the existence of a significant percentage of Muslims of this sort, and certainly not enough that would justify an attempt at sorting them out via some kind of vetting of filtering process in immigration.
That brings me to the next point, i.e., that if Muslims can, theoretically, be separated from their Islamic influences, what’s left over? Is it good? I don’t think so. Most are still oppressive of women, many of them still think rape of female non-members of their group is okay (or justifiable), most of them still hate the West, still hate Jews, and disturbingly high percentages of them coming from areas like Pakistan and Afghanistan think it’s okay to rape boys. In the former Soviet republics (Uzbekistan etc.) they still have bridenapping as a mainstream cultural tradition. And those are among the most “moderate” countries, relatively speaking. Practice of female genital mutilation and killing of “witches” still occurs in many Sub-Saharan African countries; these are not uniquely “Islamic” practices (though they are incorporated into sharia). When you strip away the Islam from a Muslim, in most cases you would not be left with a nascent Westerner. You would be left in most cases with a barbarian who has had none of the benefits of the past several hundred years of Western civilizational development.
Not only has Furnish failed in taking into account that Hizballah is a Shia terrorist group and is popular among Shia Muslims, he has failed to take into account that terrorism is not the only violent and deadly crime for which Muslims are overrepresented as perpetrators. In the West, violent and deadly crimes committed by Muslims (murders, rapes, etc.) far exceed the death and destruction of the terrorist attacks thus far in the past couple of decades.
Even though Furnish is focused on the terrorist threat in proposal, he fails to take into account that Shia terrorists, via Iran, may soon have the capability to carry out one of the most deadly types of attacks, namely, use of small nuclear bombs that could kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people, and afflict many more with related illnesses.
Finally, as with practically all such immigration proposals for sorting out dangerous from safe Muslims, Furnish does not seem to have done any research on (nor consulted any experts in) immigration as to how this would actually be done. What would be the actual policy and procedure? I don’t know much about the details, but I sure would do some research on immigration policies and procedures before seriously proposing a policy that may be totally unrealistic in practice. We do know that lots of terrorists have gotten through our existing post-9/11 system.
RonaldB says
As far as allowing Muslim immigration, the standard should not be set so low that a person is admitted simply on the probability he won’t commit violence.
Even assuming we need more immigration (we don’t), the criteria should go further, to ask if the person supports our culture and our forms of government. A person who believes that Islam should simply vote in sharia-compliant law as soon as they have the manpower and political organization to do so, is NOT a contributor to the US. Also, a potential immigrant should have the intelligence and education to immediately become self-supporting.
I think countries in general, and the US in particular, should get away from the assumption that they are a dumping ground for people in need, assuming they can be assured the people will not be violent or dependents. We are responsible only for ourselves. I can feel sorry for other peoples, especially those suffering through no fault of their own…but, we are not obligated to share our home simply because someone else needs what we have.
Richard Paulsen says
Since islam is so good, why then escape from islamic countries. Doesn´t make sense.
Jay Boo says
Trump vs Hillary
Hillary Clinton initially declined to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist group.
Hillary and Obama policies have supported terrorists.
abad says
Just ban all Muslim immigrants – they hate us, they have PROVEN they hate us since 9-11 and have NO real reason to be in the United States.
Period.
Peggy says
They’ve hated us way before 9-11 and they have a very good reason for being in our countries. They plant to take over. That’s a good reason. Problem is it’s not that good for us.
Jerry says
They hate us since the days the fake prophet invented that fake religion and their fake god.
Mazo says
I hope Nizari Ismailis and Dawoodi Bohra Ismailis read the comments here and see how much hate is in westerners towards them even though they never committed any terrorist attack and even though the Nizari Ismailis abandoned the tenets of Islam and no longer practice prayer, fasting, pilgrimage or jihad in any sense of the word and their leader Aga Khan is a playboy who beds Hollywood actresses and models.
Druze and Alawites should also read the comments here about “Taqiyya artists” since they are big practitioners of Taqiyya and the insults here towards their prophets and holy texts.
Saudi Arabia allows Twelver Shia, Alawites, Druze, and Ismailis into Mecca and gives them legal documents (green Iqama) which legally treats them as Muslims when visiting Saudi Arabia.
Only Ahmadis and Bahai are banned from Mecca if they get caught out. They are not an ancient sect like Ismailis, Druze, and Alawites which were formed during the same time as the four Sunni Madhahib and Twelve Shia. Ahmadis were formed by former Sunnis who changed their beliefs and invented their teachings out of thin air in the 19th century hence why they are banned from Mecca and absolutely not treated as Muslims whether legally or in private. They can’t claim to be ignorant of true Islamic beliefs since their founders were former Sunnis. Bahais are similar in that they were founded by former Twelver Shia who invented their own teachings out of thin air in the 19th century. They cannot claim the same status as Ismailis.
Pakistan treats its Ismaili population as Muslims and does not subject them to the humiliating passport declaration that Ahmadis have to go through to obtain a passport.
linnte says
Sorry Mr.Sidway, I ain’t buying it. Why? Because they all read the same Qur’an, that’s why. They all read the same Hadith and they all share the same intolerant view of Kaffir.
Mazo says
Educate yourself, moron.
Twelver Shia use different Hadith collections than Sunnis. Ismailis, back when they actually used Hadith, also had different Hadith collection. Alawites and Druze do not even share their texts with strangers and their beliefs are even further from Sunnis than Twelvers and Ismaili.
KnowThyEnemy says
@Mazo
Shias have different Hadith collections than Sunnis, that is correct, but they don’t use them! They use the Sunni hadiths when it really matters.
Go to the comments section in the following article and search for my username (knowTheEnemy) where I asked a question to Ali Sina (a Shia ex-Muslim) on exactly this subject. Read his response! (He posted the response under username “Guest”)-
http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/ali-sina-women-islam-muhammad-misogynist.html/
Champ says
The ever-pious defender of islam ‘mazo’ states that Linnte is a “moron”? Oh what perfect irony! …and thanks for the laugh! 😀
linnte says
Mazo, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Piss you off did I? The average “moderate” Muslim here in America would have no clue what you are talking about.
Thanks Champ! These guys just show up, like ticks on a dog don’t they?
Peggy says
I’ve heard that Alawites are hated by other Muslims because they don’t believe in waging wars in the name of religion so maybe they do have some things they ignore.
But, this still doesn’t stop them from supporting Muslims before non Muslims.
Mazo says
Also Ismailis and the others do not interpret the Qur’an the same way as Sunnis.
Jay Boo says
That is very true.
Let’s not unfairly lump them all together.
The Sunnis behead with the right hand and others use the left.
Ethel Mertz says
While I appreciate the article for educational reasons, I fail to see where any of it matters. The question here is… How do we vet them? In other words, how do we determine their religious affiliations let alone their specific sect?? They can easily lie. What are we going to do? Send background investigators to these countries and ask their neighbors and families?? Get real! Typically restrictions have been based upon race, ethnicity, or national origin. That’s pretty easy to determine. Religion not so much.
I recommend a full moratorium on immigration. Immigration (largely Third World) has been over 1 million per year since around 1965. With all our economic problems and unemployment issues, we don’t need more people. We can help refugees over there. I support establishing safe zones and using those air conditioned tents in SA that only get used 3 weeks a year. I think that’s fair.
Ethel Mertz says
Oops my reply went wrong person!
KnowThyEnemy says
Good analysis, but can it be put into practice? We need to keep in mind that Muslims are permitted to lie for the cause of Islam/ummah. Not to mention that they lie to non-Muslims because of supremacist attitudes.
Under Trump, if a Muslim applies for, say a visa to enter the US, and the consulate officer asks “Are you a Muslim? Do you believe Quran is from God? Do you believe Muhammad is messenger of God?”, and the Muslim answers “No” to all three of these questions, then what? How would the consulate officer know whether the Muslim is truthful or not? If the Muslim is famous in society and it is easy to find, on internet for example, that he has affirmed his belief in Islam, then the consulate officer can easily catch the lie.
But what if the Muslim is not famous? What if s/he is a closet ex-Muslim? What if s/he is a non-Muslim who happens to have a Muslim sounding name? There is no easy way for the consulate to find out these facts. If the consulate simply trusts the Muslim’s response that he is not Muslim and grants him the visa, the Muslim will enter the US and simply start going a mosque here and start attending interfaith functions organized by useful idiots to advance Islam. That would be a total failure of the Muslim-ban law!
The same applies if you ask the visa applicant “Are you a Sunni?” All that the Sunni has to say is “No” to throw a monkey wrench in the Sunni-ban policy.
The second thing to consider is that if a Muslim-entry ban is enacted, Muslims within the US will use it as an excuse to become violent. Terror-attacks will indeed go up, as many establishment officials warn. On top of that the Islamo-leftist alliance will react by crying bigotry, racism, and Islamophobia, and will hold us responsible for fresh terror-attacks. Most worrysomely, they will react by granting more positions of power and influence to Muslims.
The proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US cannot work without having a bias against Islam itself. As RonaldB pointed out in a comment above, letting people in simply on the probability that they will not commit violence, does not take into account the long-term goals of Islam. Hence, a bias against Islam itself is what we need to eliminate the threat it poses to our countries. In the past we did not simply discriminate against Nazis and Communists, we also denounced their respective ideologies, including in educational institutions. We need to do the same with Islam for the Muslim-ban policy to be effective [over the long term].
That way, even if a Muslim enters the US deceptively, there is little s/he will be able to do for the long-term benefit of Islam, even though s/he can still join a terror cell. Same would be true of Muslims already in US. They will cause more violence, no doubt, but they will not be able to advance Islam. Nor will the Islamo-left alliance be able to help Muslims much, because having a bias against Islam means that it would be much harder for its followers to gain positions of power and influence.
Without power and influence, that is, without the ability to advance Islam or counter the anti-Islam bias, the threat of Sharia usurping our current law will abate significantly over time. The same will happen with jihad attacks.
Peggy says
Nobody should get an automatic visa. They should all be temporary protection visas and when we find that they have lied to us and are in fact Muslim (they will hang around other Muslims and attend mosques) we send them back.
The ones who were honest and said they were Muslim don’t even get a TPV.
I doubt the women will not cover and men accompanying them will be Muslim as well.
I know this won’t work 100% but it’s one weapon in the arsenal.
navnlos says
Immigration officials can learn from Israel on how to vet properly. It is not about asking simple yes or no questions; the questions are carefully designed to uncover the truth and body language is monitored closely. The Israeli model is used to determine whether the person is a threat to the country — not only in terms of violence — and I think this is the way all vetting should be done. Find out their religious and political beliefs by subtle questioning and work from there.
Ethel Mertz says
While I appreciate the article for educational reasons, I fail to see where any of it matters. The question here is… How do we vet them? In other words, how do we determine their religious affiliations let alone their specific sect?? They can easily lie. What are we going to do? Send background investigators to these countries and ask their neighbors and families?? Get real! Typically restrictions have been based upon race, ethnicity, or national origin. That’s pretty easy to determine. Religion not so much.
I recommend a full moratorium on immigration. Immigration (largely Third World) has been over 1 million per year since around 1965. With all our economic problems and unemployment issues, we don’t need more people. We can help refugees over there. I support establishing safe zones and using those air conditioned tents in SA that only get used 3 weeks a year. I think that’s fair.
Ralph Sidway says
I look at Tim Furnish’s approach as the nose of the camel in the tent, to use a desert metaphor. He doesn’t say this, but I believe that by making the case for a freeze on Sunni immigration while allowing proven non-terror-linked sects, that policy will (1) stand a far better chance of winning even broader, bi-partisan support, and (2) sets a legal precedent should the freeze need to be expanded to other Islamic sects. In any case, even Ismailis, Ahmadis, Alawites, and especially Shi’ite immigrants must be rigorously vetted, and in a Trump administration, rigorous vetting is far likelier to be adopted than under any Democrat. Let’s work for the more certain victory first (freeze on Sunnis) and be prepared to call for a total halt on Muslim immigration if necessary.
KnowThyEnemy says
How would you know if someone is Sunni unless they answer Yes to “Are you a Sunni Muslim?” I hope you are aware that Muslims lie and deceive anyone and everyone for the benefit of Islam/ ummah.
It is actually far easier to refuse US-entry to a Muslim who denies being a Muslim, if he is applying from an Islam-majority country, even if his lie is not caught. But Muslims can easily get away by claiming to be “Not-Sunni” for entry into the US.
RonaldB says
Ralph,
I appreciate your sentiments, and certainly your fight for safety in your postings.
But, I think the proposal would indeed be a nose-of-the-camel, but in the other direction.
First, the proposal assumes that government vetting has the best interests of the US at heart. Unfortunately, in the last two administrations, particularly the current one, this is no longer the case. Thus, the claim that one is a Shia will serve as a convenient hat for Islam-compliant immigration officials to allow in any Muslim.
Furthermore, the writing of regulations and the screening process itself would be horrendous. The Amadyas themselves defend the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR. How are you going to specify the exclusion of Sunni and then enforce it? The Sunnis who manage to lie their way through can simply establish a Sunni mosque, and not call it Sunni. All the Muslims will know it, and so will any alert law enforcement. Can they prosecute on the basis of the mosque having a Sunni dogma, rather than a Shia? Good luck in proving that. And I believe such a discrimination based on dogma alone does legitimately run directly afoul of the First Amendment.
I think it would be easier, and more productive, to ban Islam on the basis of its political content: that is, not allow anyone to enter the US that does not accept the current constitution, including the first ten amendments. If they are Muslim, they have to show how they accept the constitution in direct contravention of Islamic law.
I don’t even agree with what I just proposed. I think it it simpler, and more likely of success, to simply implement the ban that Trump spoke of. Will it be temporary? Obviously, the posters on this blog hope not. If the ban is lifted once we figure out which Muslims are safe to import, I’ll be happy. Good luck on that discovery.
I’m a Trump supporter, but wouldn’t be too surprised if he backs out on 80% of his proposals. But, he’s the best we’ve been offered, by far, so I’m jumping on his ship. If it doesn’t work, at least I know we took a swing.
Jack Diamond says
Sunni-Shi’a. What happens when the PLO trains what becomes the Iran Republican Guard and Hizballah? What happens when Hizballah trains with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and work together in jihad operations? What happens when Shi’a Iran funds Sunni Hamas and trains Hamas fighters in Iran, as happened? Where are the supposed separations and fine distinctions about associations with terror groups? What is the rationale for not excluding all Shi’a Muslims for the same reasons, being a terror-linked sect? How is excluding all Sunni Muslims less complicated than excluding all Muslims? Just because we cannot say “all” and must only say “some” even though that some is 85% of the Muslim world? I’m all for anything that begins excluding Muslim immigration, no “Syrian” refugees allowed; no Muslims from “hotbeds” of jihad activity allowed; no Muslims associated with jihad-supremacist groups, including the Brotherhood, allowed…but if we can skip right to Trump’s statement-suggestion, let’s.
Timothy Furnish says
Over at HNN I’ve been called an Islamophobe and rank conservative (I am conservative–albeit usually not rank); here at Jihadwatch I’m being portrayed as a clueless liberal. Interesting….depressing, actually, since RS and I are on the same side.
linnte says
Timothy, we can see you are on our side, but (and there always seems to be a “but”) most here know the goal of Islam. No matter which sect Muslims belong to, the end goal is implementation of Shari’a. Period. If the more “peaceful” Muslims were the majority, what do you think they would do? Leave everyone alone because they believe in tolerance and Liberty? Nope. They too would begin their suppression of others who don’t live like they do. Because they have been commanded.
Timothy Furnish says
No, that’s simply not true. Isma’ilis don’t believe in shari`ah in anything like the same fashion as Sunnis. Alawis don’t believe in shari`ah AT ALL. Many (not all, but many) Sufi orders put direct experience of Allah far ahead of any Islamic law. If it’s wrong to say all Muslims are peaceful, it’s equally obtuse to say they’re all scimitar-wielding fanatics. You have to look at history as well as theology–most folks on here, I’m sorry to say, only look at the latter.
linnte says
OK, so I will look up the distinctions you feel are so important. But answer me this. How will the people doing the vetting KNOW which sect is which, especially when word gets out that only a certain sect of Islam is being admitted? I know you know about Taqyyia. Can you guarantee this type of vetting will work? Would YOU steak the life of YOUR family on it?
R Cole says
One suicide attack by a Christian in 33 years – did he say Allah Akbar first?
Good argument – well laid out.
65% agree that something should be done with Muslims coming into the United States – and here in lies the Left’s problem with calling those who would support some form of a ban ‘racists’ – while at the same time courting their votes.
It does make you wonder whose opinion do the reporters reflect?
::
I had the displeasure of watching the beginning of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS’ slash and burn analysis of the rise of Donald Trump – being compared to the ‘far right’ anti-immigrant politics in Europe.
What seems to be lacking in Leftist thought is empathy and real connection.
Trump’s argument is – what is happening in Europe – should not be allowed to happen in the US.
You have Fareed Zakaria – he’s the model Muslim – who holds to the position that everything wrong with Islam today stems from Saudi Arabia’s influence. But then turn around and he’ll tell you how wonderful it was when he traveled to Mecca – beyond the point of the segregation sign that separates Muslim from non-Muslim.
[There was once some British Airline staff who became stranded in Medina and were forbidden from leaving their rooms and walking on the streets. This is more than a happy Muslim non-Muslim divide – it’s supremacist.]
Rape Capital
Fareed hit on Sweden as a country that was once open to taking in [Muslim] migrants – as with Trump in the US that country is now seeing a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment. Completely ignoring the problems these Muslim migrants have brought. Sweden, shy of one tiny nation in southern Africa – would be the rape capital of the world. Which goes to the heart of attitudes instilled in Muslim men towards women. [Yet with Fareed’s next breath, he was gladly call Trump a sexist.]
Perpetual Immigration
Then there is the never ending immigration – where Muslim immigrants have greedily taken full advantage of Sweden and European generosity. Where not only do they seek marry someone back in the old country [a cousin usually] with the first generation [which could be understood] but to do the same with every child of each generation to follow. And once the marriage-immigration papers are all lined up – these new couples can go and register for the Swedish welfare system and be taken care of for the rest of their lives. To live for free!
Any effort to point to the fact that this is unsustainable and unrealistic in the long term – is labeled as racism.
Not even mentioning the no-go areas – and the fact that ambulance and other emergency services need combat gear to service many migrant areas.
https://youtu.be/42jpuXJPk0w
Out of touch
The way the Swedish and other Europeans feel doesn’t concern Fareed.
For Fareed the Swedish complaints are ‘racists’ and needn’t even be examined.
Islam in a Suit
In Europe for years the major issue was with political Islam – this religious political attempt to impose an Islamic state or laws on the free people of Europe – is the very same thing the jihadist are blowing people up and gunning people down in Europe for.
For Fareed an Islamic imposition might be a sign of integration – not of Islam into Europe – but Europe into Islam. Which would no doubt get he and Obama’s high praise!
rubiconcrest says
Jihad Watch readers know the issues at stake almost by heart, there are many ideas but no simple solutions. The author suggests that we filter the good Muslims out of the many. I conclude that there is no silver bullet. But we must attract the Muslims we want the repel those who we do not want.
A host of actions will need to be taken that include changing immigration laws, changing the oath citizenship and reducing immigration from Islamic countries as well as required educational curricula on the true history of Mohammad and Islam, Jihad, 9/11 and ongoing Islamic terrorism as well as Sharia extremism in our public schools, among many other changes. Foreign trained and supported Imams and foreign ownership or Islamic institutions in the USA subsidized from abroad should be against the law. Islamic countries supporting Sharia and their citizens should not be permitted to donate to any public or private institution unless they live in the USA and the funds are generated within the USA. We must consider any economic pressure we can apply to regimes that support Sharia.
We must have a foreign policy that takes aim at Sharia and the regimes where it is found. Our foreign aid, visa process, trade and any other leverage we can use must be employed. We will need a new cold war against Sharia.
The USA should become a Sharia free zone. Since Islam has a history or racism, intolerance, mistreatment of women, FGM, jihad etc… Islamic institutions in the USA must have programs in place to educate their members on the laws in the USA and responsibilities as citizens and how the history of Islam runs counter to those laws. Any Muslim immigrant or resident found to be enforcing Sharia on family members or having multiple wives even if those wives do not live in the USA must be deported. Visas should be denied if men have more than one wife. The law working it’s way through Congress naming the MB as a terrorist organization, outlawing all MB front groups is a very good start.
By making the USA a place where spiritual Islam can be practiced and political Islam and Sharia outlawed and considered forms of extremism we can change the course of events in the USA and provide a model for the western world.
Wakeup says
Here is a question I would pose, does your religion allow you to freely leave if you wish or is the penalty death? I would also ask is your religion sympathetic to democracy or do you just use it to gain power and install a totallitarian system?
Even Chrstianity ultimately doesn’t believe in democracy but we are not a problem wating for Jesus to come back and take over.