Michael Mitchell: Archive

Who cares if Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.? Apparently everyone does, especially politicians and the media. The public backlash is so overwhelming it looks just as "disgusting" and "embarrassing" as Trump's ridiculous recommendation. But is it really worth such widespread denunciation? Why do so many people with such different political views need to speak out against the same idea? Should Trump's ban even be taken seriously at all?

Personally, I don't think the idea is that wild. I don't think there are two Islams, the real one and the moderate one, like our so-called "intellectuals" do. However, I do think there are two types of Muslims: those fighting for a totalitarian state ruled by Islam and those who are not. Thankfully, like most of the followers of the other major religions, the ones who reject conflict and violence see their religion through post-enlightenment lenses, otherwise the Western world would already be thoroughly infiltrated by insurgents. Considering almost no one in a position of influence is willing to name the religion of Islam as the catalyst for this war, anyone who is paranoid of this "infiltration" would see Trump's ban as God sent.

That's one reason all the talking heads are speaking out in harmony for a change. They have an "Islamophobia" phobia. To them, "Islamophobia" is not just a smear tag used to label the opposition. The fear that peaceful Muslims will be harmed by "Islamophobes" is very real to them. Everyone from all major sides is in agreement on this issue because they prioritize defending moderate Muslims over destroying the "extremist" Muslims who have "hijacked" this "peaceful" religion. They'll argue relentlessly to the point of absurdity over how to defeat the "extremists," but not about defending the moderates from religious persecution. They don't even see the moderates as moderates. To them, they're true Muslims.

Of course, the refusal to challenge the ideology behind all the violence is the problem. And if we can't consider a literal interpretation of the Islamic religion, which is fundamentally violent like most religions, then how can we know if a Muslim is peaceful or not? It's an ill-formed but very important question that Trump's ban at least kind of sort of addresses.

I'm not a fan of statistics, but here are some without bias from The Washington Post: "Muslims make up nearly a quarter of the world's population, and that portion is projected to hit 30 percent by 2050, at which point Muslims would be nearly as numerous as Christians, according to a Pew Research Center report issued in April. Between 80,000 to 90,000 Muslims immigrate to the United States each year, according to a 2011 report by Pew."

That's a lot of potential "extremists," and it only took two to kill 14 and injure 21 others in San Bernardino. Even if we assume all Muslims already in America are peaceful, which is an assumption Trump's ban hypocritically implies, then how do we judge immigrants and visitors? Essentially, it is this question, a question apparently no one influential in mainstream politics feels qualified to address, that has frozen the world -- everyone, that is, except violent Muslims, who are very influential these days. Even Trump is willing to give a pass to millions of American Muslims.

The truth is there is no answer to the question of how to determine if a person is peaceful or not. Unless a person has already committed a physically forceful act or is clearly planning one, it is impossible to predict future behavior with any certainty. Humans possess free will. A lady could threaten to blow up a building and then never actually do it. A man could be the most kind person you've ever met and then shoot up a hospital tomorrow. Humans can't be judged by their words, only by their actions, and only after those actions have been taken.

This is the problem with Trump's ban. It is based on the assumption all foreign Muslims are violent, an obviously false assumption. While the mainstream media and our political leaders are preaching we should assume Muslims are peaceful until they prove otherwise, Trump is saying: "Enough is enough! We can't afford to wait until the enemy has infiltrated our homeland. So be it if a few peaceful Muslims are denied their basic human rights." And neither side is very convincing because it's all based on assumption. We cannot predict future behavior. It's all pointless rhetoric and even the dumbest American knows it.

What we need is certainty. We need to figure out how to win the unwinnable war. The security of all Western countries depends on it. But really, we have no clue how to defeat the enemy. Meanwhile, that enemy grows stronger, bolder and bigger every day. So who cares about Trump's ban? The fate of the free world is at stake.