Allen Hunt, a radio talk show host who claims to have the only radio program in America that deals with right versus wrong rather than right versus left is simply factually wrong on the notion that Islamic immigration to the United States is a problem that can be ended legislatively, either practically or legally. Moreover, he is morally wrong on the notion that Islamic immigration to the United States should be ended legislatively.
Mr. Hunt believes that any Muslim who is not a US citizen should be removed from this country (at least he understands that one cannot remove US citizens who are Muslim but that is of little comfort to those here who are Muslim but who are not citizens). His position with regard to those currently in the United States is, by itself, unconstitutional. Even during the period of the odious Chinese Exclusionary Act, those Chinese currently in the United States could not be removed simply on the basis of being Chinese.
There are two sections of the United States Constitution that, when operating together, prohibit Allen Hunt's desired result of kicking non-citizen Muslims out. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states (and, according to more recent Supreme Court rulings, the federal government as well) from "denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." The problem for the Allen Hunts of this world is that such a policy would run afoul of the notion that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof" of a religion. Obviously, any law that targets non-citizen Muslims who are currently present in the United States is a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof of Islam (since such free exercise would subject them to deportation). This is clearly unconstitutional.
But what about those who wish to immigrate? Can they not be prohibited if they are Muslim? Such a policy would be completely unwise from the standpoint of strengthening the economy even if it might pass constitutional muster. After all, the first reaction from Muslim oil states would be to stop selling the US oil and our economy would crash and burn as a result. Furthermore, what would prevent terrorist Muslims from simply lying about their religion? Once the US makes it clear that it is waging war against Muslims as opposed to radical Muslims, it will simply drive Muslims underground. Besides, the last time a government waged a war against a religion it didn't turn out well for anyone concerned (World War II -- Hitler v. the Jews). In addition, there is that pesky religion clause in the US Constitution again, which probably would prohibit the type of immigration law that Mr. Hunt advocates.
Instead, a return to the national origins system would be more likely to pass muster constitutionally, but that too carries with it serious problems: it is likely that Muslim nations would react in a hostile manner to such an implementation and we would see a repeat of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Hardly a plan that helps our economy. Your policy is one of knee jerk reaction and is poorly thought out, Mr. Hunt.
So why does Mr. Hunt persist in his quixotic quest to quash Islam in America?
It is for the same reason that people like Robert Spencer do: he is an unrepentant bigot and needs to be called out on it.
Such individuals love to question why American Muslims don't take forceful steps to condemn terrorism. But we do! However, individuals such as Robert Spencer want their cake and eat it to (and I presume, though I am unaware if it is in fact the case, that Mr. Hunt is similar) in that when American Muslims condemn terrorism, we are then accused of Al-Taqiyya, which means that we are permitted to do the impermissible under certain circumstances. Mr. Spencer has characterized this is allowing (or even requiring) Muslims to lie about Islam and conceal their status as Muslims. He further states that Islam if fundamentally in disharmony with other religions and requires Muslims to make war (Jihad) against those of other faiths. Indeed, according to Mr. Spencer, Muslims who reject the principles of dhimmitude and holy war are not good Muslims.
This is a deliberate misinterpretation of Islam. It is not up to Mr. Spencer to judge whether I am a good Muslim based on their flawed understanding of my religion. It is up to me to judge it for myself truth or errancy under Islamic jurisprudence and for Allah to determine if my judgment is sound and in accordance with the faith.
Instead, what is the solution is what Daniel Pipes refers to as moderate Islam, which rejects the radical Islamic jihadist agenda. Yet banning Muslims from the United States would only strengthen radicalism by making it appear as though the US in uninterested in engaging and promoting moderate elements. Is it any wonder that Muslims choose not to speak up when they find themselves being lambasted by both radical Muslims and critics such as Mr. Spencer as being un-Islamic? Furthermore, if we are going to be accused of being deceitful when we denounce terrorism, why should we bother to denounce it at all even when we do not agree with it? It does us no good and could attract unwanted attention from the radical elements within our own religion.
Indeed, moderate Muslims have much to hate and fear about individuals such as bin Ladin. The number of Muslims killed by radical Muslim insurgents is far greater than the number of Christians killed by these individuals. When Christians ask "why don't Muslims condemn terrorism against Christians by radical Muslims?", moderate Muslims may just as well argue "why don't Christians condemn terrorism against moderate Muslims by radical Muslims?"
Yet, by denying moderate Muslims safe haven in places such as the United States, they force moderate Muslims into closer quarters with their radical brethren and thus place moderate Muslims in an untenable situation: radicalize or die. Now how can that be the right position, Mr. Hunt?
No, the solution is not unilateral and total bans on Islamic immigration. It is not to argue that all terrorists are Muslims so we need to screen out all Muslims (a blatant lie--according to the most recent National Counterterrorism Center Terrorism report [covering all of 2009] found at of the 14,971 deaths due to terrorism worldwide in that year, approximately 62% of all such deaths were caused by Islamic Extremist terrorists (those who use Islam as a cover for their terrorist actions) but 7% of all such deaths were caused by Christian Extremist terrorists (those who use Christianity as a cover for their terrorist actions). Another 14% were due to secular/political/anarchist terrorists. At the same time, however, if we were to examine those killed by such terrorists, the disparity between Muslims victims and Christian victims would be far greater. Ironically, a Christian American in the United States is probably more likely to be the victim of a terrorist who happens to be Christian than a Muslim terrorist (provided we take out the obvious exception of 9/11), whereas a Muslim in a Muslim-dominated country is far more likely to be the victim of a Muslim extremist terrorist.
Furthermore, given that the total number of Muslims in the world exceeds 1 billion and that those within the United States is around 5 million, it is clear that there is no reason to fear that Islam itself is a threat to our way of life. By encouraging secular and moderate Muslims and rewarding behavior that is characteristic of the same, we promote this element within Islamic society.
No comments:
Post a Comment