Islam is
not just a religion, but a political movement like Communism. So why can’t we
apply political restrictions to Muslims like we did to communists?
Events such as
Brexit and increasing terrorist attacks continue to underscore that immigration
from majority-Muslim countries will continue to be a dominant political
question, yet pundits and politicians continue to treat this concern as
impossible to resolve at best, and xenophobic at worst.
On “Special
Report with Bret Baier” a couple of months ago, Steven
Hayes was appalled and contemptuous at the idea that the United States could
apply a religious test to immigrants.
Hayes was not
alone. It seems to be a tenet of establishment conservatives that applying a
religious test is beyond the pale, especially for Muslims. House Speaker Paul
Ryan has said, as
written up by Micky Kaus, “Ryan made a point of praising ‘Muslims, the
vast, vast, vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful, who believe in pluralism
and freedom and democracy and individual rights.’” The entire quote is
available at
the Washington Post.
Islam Is a
Political Movement
This shows a stunning naiveté. Islam is far more than just
a religion. It is also a political movement with strict rules for how society
should be governed. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state, which
has implications for our system of government. The Pew Center on Religion and
Public Life conducted a
face-to-face survey of 38,000 Muslims around the world that found
“Overwhelming percentages of Muslims in many countries want Islamic law
(Sharia) to be the official law of the land…”
Sharia is a
system of governance that strictly limits the rights of women, uses draconian
punishments for crime (such as cutting off the hands of thieves), and applies
the death penalty for homosexuality, rejecting Islam, and a host of other
offenses. None of these laws
are compatible with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Now, the survey
suggests caveats aplenty. Muslims in former Communist countries are not so
supportive, and Muslims in some secularized countries like Turkey are less
likely to support sharia. There are differences of opinion on whether sharia
should be applied to criminal cases, or just to family and property disputes.
And some significant countries like Syrian and Somalia were not surveyed.
Ryan may be
right that some Muslims support pluralism, freedom, democracy, and individual
rights, but it is hardly a
“vast, vast, vast majority.” In fact it is likely a tiny, tiny, tiny minority.
Perhaps the
Muslims Ryan has met agree with his standards, but if he has met only
assimilated American Muslims, his sample is badly skewed. Also, these are not
the people Trump has been talking about. Trump is referring to migrants from
many of the countries Pew surveyed. Pew notes that “enshrining sharia as
official law is particularly high in some countries with predominantly Muslim
populations, such as Afghanistan (99%) and Iraq (91%).”
This
means more than 90 percent of potential immigrants from these two countries
favor making sharia the law of the land. It would be foolish to think that view
will change as soon as they land at JFK. Allowing large numbers of immigrants
from those countries into the United States would mean importing a population
that has no affection for Western jurisprudence, and in fact is committed to
overthrowing it.
We Don’t Need a
Religious Test to Bar Immigrants from Certain Countries
This is not primarily a religious issue, but a political
one. No country is required to allow entry for people who are committed to
overthrowing it. We have faced this situation before with Communism. Members of
the Communist or other “totalitarian” parties were not
allowed to come into this country.
Generally,
membership in the Communist Party is a bar to immigration to the United
States. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
§212(a)(3)(D)(i), any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated
with the Communist or any other totalitarian party, domestic or foreign, is
inadmissible.
Some exceptions
were made for people forced to join the Party to get a job, or young people who
joined as teens, but the general rule was absolute. Communists wanted to
overthrow the United States, so were not allowed to come here.
Importantly, the
great majority of Islamic sharia supporters surveyed do not support
violence. The Pew survey reports:
In most
countries where the question was asked, roughly three-quarters or more Muslims
reject suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilians. And in
most countries, the prevailing view is that such acts are never justified
as a means of defending Islam from its enemies. Yet there are some countries in
which substantial minorities think violence against civilians is at least
sometimes justified. This view is particularly widespread among Muslims in the
Palestinian territories (40%), Afghanistan (39%), Egypt (29%) and Bangladesh
(26%).
But is
that the standard for admission to America? Most Communist Party members were
not going to commit violence, either, but they were dedicated to the overthrow
of the American system.
Now, much of the
media are reporting Trump’s stance has softened. He recently
said his idea to ban Muslim immigration was just a suggestion. But it was
never more than that—an idea, a proposal, a suggestion. It may be hard to
remember in these days of diktats from the White House, but that is how laws
are supposed to be made in the United States: someone has an idea, gives it
voice, and it is then criticized and debated until some critical mass of people
agree or disagree with it.
If you are looking to prohibit sharia
advocates, the Muslim population is a pretty good place to start, especially
people from nations with predominantly Muslim populations.
Trump has also revised
his position to focus on immigrants from “terrorist nations,” but that
revision misses that many Muslims in European nations are passionate advocates
of Sharia. His original stance, that we should apply the ban “until we can
figure out what’s going on,” actually makes more sense. Part of that “figuring
out” should be a change in the focus from Islam as a religion, to sharia as a
political philosophy.
How to make that distinction is a challenge. Obviously
the starting place must be examining the beliefs of Muslims. Not all Muslims
support enshrining sharia law, but it is doubtful that any non-Muslims do. So
if you are looking to prohibit sharia advocates, the Muslim population is a
pretty good place to start, especially people from nations with predominantly
Muslim populations.
Discernment
is not the same as discrimination. We need to be able to discern which
applicants for immigration are coming here because they support American values
and laws, and which are coming to overthrow those laws. Support for sharia is a
pretty good indicator, just as membership in the Communist Party was a good
indicator during the Cold War. So we need to develop tools that will provide
that information.
Once those tools
are in place, the ban can be relaxed. These tools will never be perfect, and
some people will slip through the cracks, but it is the height of foolishness
to pretend, as Ryan does, that the vast, vast, vast majority of potential
Muslim immigrants believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy, and individual
rights. They do not.
Greg
Scandlen is the founder of Consumers for Health Care Choices, as well as an
accomplished writer, researcher, and public speaker. He is considered one of
the nation's experts on health care financing, insurance regulation, and
employee benefits. He blogs at http://gmscan.wordpress.com/