On Friday, Jan. 27, President Donald Trump fulfilled a campaign promise, briefly imposing a temporary ban on immigrants entering the U.S. to allow the government time to implement a more effective screening policy. Cries ranging from unconstitutionality to simply being un-American quickly followed.
It is imperative any analysis of this issue be driven by logic – not emotion. Yet critics play on emotion, claiming Trump’s ban targets Muslims.
As of 2010, 49 countries had Muslim majority populations; this ban only lists seven. And, all seven were flagged earlier by President Barack Obama as “countries of concern.”
They also were countries Obama had previously imposed restrictions against, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. All Trump did was to broaden those restrictions into a temporary ban. Critics voicing concerns about Trump’s ban registered no concerns about Obama’s earlier restrictions.
Other critics complain the ban fails to include countries with links to the 9/11 attacks – Saudi Arabia, Egypt and United Arab Emirates. This may well have been motivated by the false hope using Obama’s list would stymy criticism.
Clearly, the seven represent countries either in turmoil or known to foster anti-U.S. and terrorist sentiments. The fact all are heavily Islamic does not give them a free pass precisely for this reason. The ban is legal, focusing on threats emanating from the most prevalent countries.
Democracies have a value system tolerant of diverse beliefs, particularly when it concerns religion. What we need understand is some beliefs come with “baggage” – i.e., a noted propensity for violence. We simply cannot wave these believers through on the hope and prayer they will not act upon them.
Without stigmatizing an entire religion as violent, but while recognizing believers have performed numerous violent acts in its name, scrutinizing entry is not unreasonable. This is particularly so for immigrants originating from countries known as cauldrons of violence.
We must understand the baggage Islam brings with it and the threat it presents to our national security.
Islam is unique among religions. It is a hybrid involving two ideologies – one religious, one political. Fundamentals for both rest upon three pillars: the Quran, the Sira (Prophet Muhammad’s biography) and the Hadith (traditions mandating believers live their lives as did Muhammad).
An effort to separate these two ideologies by analyzing these pillars was undertaken by professor Bill Warner. Known as the Trilogy Project, his approach “was based upon scientific principles and objective methods, so that any independent person could achieve the same results if they used the same methods.”
It involved identifying every reference within the pillars where Islam dictates how Muslims are to treat “kafirs” – i.e., non-believers. Such references were tagged as “political” Islam for failing to address the believer’s relationship with Allah, while references that did address it were deemed “religious.”
Astonishingly, Warner found, “The Quran says that the kafir may be murdered, tortured, plotted against, enslaved, robbed, insulted, beheaded, demeaned, mocked and so forth. The Hadith and Sira agree. …”
Warner’s analysis applied a well-known ethical yardstick – the Golden Rule. As it demands one treat others as one would like to be treated, he noted its application, “…removes the brutality, insults and prejudice directed at the kafir. The constant attacks would disappear.”
Significant to our Muslim immigration threat analysis is noting Project Trilogy’s results. Applying the Golden Rule to these three pillars would require a large amount of their content, disguised as religion, be eliminated as purely political. Warner determined that 61 percent of the Quran’s content, 75 percent of the Sira’s and 20 percent of the Hadith’s meet this test.
Warner underscores Islam’s bottom line: “The worst error in thinking about Islam is that it is a religion … religion is the smallest part of Islam.” We must understand this: Islam is predominantly a political ideology packaged as a religion.
Just imagine Democrats or Republicans seeking to do what Muslims have – establishing a political ideology disguised as a religion. Think how much more effective they would be in imposing it upon Americans.
As Muslims’ fundamental beliefs evolve from these pillars, we must recognize what they teach believers about non-believers: intolerance.
The pillars tell Muslims to force non-believers, by whatever means necessary, to submit to Islam or die. Interestingly, any Muslim denying this is true becomes an apostate (disbeliever); however, any Muslim denying it just to mislead a kafir is exempted under taqiyya – the Islamic concept sanctioning lies by Muslims to non-Muslims to further Islam’s influence.
This leads us to question President Barack Obama’s assertions over the years that Islam is “peaceful.” The Trilogy Project results undermine this. Obama claimed Islam was hijacked by extremists endeavoring to give it a violent interpretation; we now know Islam was hijacked by moderates endeavoring to give it a peaceful one.
If an ideology is built around a belief system mandating all others submit to it or die, its believers potentially are a threat to non-believers. Does this mean all believers will embrace their right to kill? Of course not; however, the ideology issues believers an Allah-sanctioned “hunting license” to do so. Indiscriminately opening our doors to them without adequate screening leaves us to determine the identification of license users by the non-believer body count they leave behind. This was what we had to do in San Bernardino, Orlando, Fort Hood and elsewhere.
Accordingly, all Muslims conceivably present a potential danger to followers of all other religions. But critics objecting to Trump’s ban as targeting a specific religion ignore a responsibility to better understand Islam’s political ideology. Giving Islam the full weight of a religion only invites future attacks by Muslim extremists, gaining entry posing as moderates. Harboring a political ideology, Islam exceeds its baggage weight as a religion.
Too many of Trump’s immigration critics base their opposition on what is right about America without understanding what is wrong about Islam. What is wrong about Islam is the intolerant political ideology it brings, packaged as a religion. Islam’s small religious component has become the camel’s nose under the West’s tent seeking to impose its political ideology upon us. We ignore it at our peril.
A version of this piece also appeared on http://www.wnd.com/