Ban Muslims? Really? Is that the Answer?

This past week was interesting, to say the least, in terms of how to handle future Islamic terror attacks in the United States.

At the head of all the discussion was Presidential hopeful Donald Trump and his proposal to ban all Muslims’ entrance into the country.

Of course, his comments were met with all kinds of fury from both the Muslims and the liberal media. How could such a person even think such a thing? Why, such a suggestion automatically disqualifies him to be President—or at least some opined.

The questions that need to be asked in lieu of his position are, is that really the answer to Islamic terrorism: to ban all Muslims? Moreover, how could one possibly implement such a mandate? Finally, could such a move ever become a law and who else might be next?

Trump’s Proposal

First of all, banning Muslims would not assure anything. As pointed out in a previous article, obedient Muslims are inherent terrorists. It is what Muhammad became when he finally garnered control of Yathrib (Medina) and it is what Islamic doctrine encourages.

“We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve,” states Surah 3:151. Now, some might argue, that is Allah doing the terrorizing. However, are not Muslims supposed to emulate Allah and his messenger?

Banning the Muslims would only give them additional incentive to ramp up their terroristic activities, if not set off what I have called an internal ticking time bomb in the current disobedient Muslim to want to finally take his/her faith seriously.

Second, because of the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya or muda’rat, both of which mean “deception,” questioning or garnering information from the Muslim contingent would prove to be increasingly futile as the years passed.

Sending everyone named Abdullah or Hakim to the Muslim country of their choosing, because they were found to be Muslim, and then bulldozing every mosque in America, might work at first.

But, by cunning deception and lying, both of which are acceptable for Muslims, so long as it advances the Islamic cause, the Muslim intent on waging jihad against the infidel or satanic world of jahili would eventually find a way around any ban, even if he/she only did so once.

Please remember, according to Muhammad, “War is deceit,” and the obedient Muslim has no problem being deceitful, if for no other reason than to be like his exemplar.

Third, for the United States to enact such a ban would run contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids the government from passing laws in respect to religion.

Of course, some might argue that that particular amendment had to do with governmental endorsement of a particular religion and not the banning of one.

That said, there are all kinds of religions being practiced in America, such as Satanism, Wicca, and atheism, which, given the logical end of their worldviews, are every bit as sinister and destructive as Islam. Yet, they are tolerated.

To pick one, simply because the Islamist straps on a bomb or picks up an AK-47 and goes on a killing spree, while all the others are a little less direct in their destructive doctrines, would be highly inconsistent.

So, what is the answer, if banning Muslims would solve nothing, the Muslims would ramp up the deception as a result, and there would be a lack of consistency in applying the ban? Surely, something must be done, right? Indeed, there must.

A Counter Proposal

The first thing any President ought to do is shut down all known Muslim terrorist organizations currently operating in the United States, with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) being #1 on the list. If we do not take care of the obvious, then how will we ever take care of the not-so-obvious?

Second, in Islam there is a law concerning truces that states when the Muslim is in trouble with an enemy, the Muslim may petition for peace by entering into an agreement with the enemy for up to ten years. This is to protect the Muslim from being totally annihilated. Plus, it gives the Muslim time to regain his strength for another run at the enemy later.

Based on that principle, what the United States could do is place a moratorium upon the Muslim hijra or immigration for ten years. No one, including students studying at American universities, would be allowed to immigrate to the United States from Muslim countries during that time period.

At the end of the moratorium, a determination would be made whether to re-allow immigration from Muslim countries or institute another moratorium lasting ten more years.

This would go on indefinitely, or at least until the Muslims got the message, if you come to America, leave your terroristic ideology on the foreign seashore. Since the Muslim would never consent to such, there would never be another Muslim enter the country from abroad.

Finally, surveil, surveil, surveil. When law enforcement is looking for bank robbers, rapists, and identity thieves, they develop profiles of who they are looking for and then set up surveillances to capture those persons before they can carry out another devious deed.

The same must apply to Islamic terrorists carrying out their devious deeds as well. That is not to say that all cases of domestic terrorism are caused by Islamists or that all those claiming to be Muslims are terrorists (yet).

What it does mean is that we quit being stupid about those who are committing over 90% of all the domestic terrorism acts in the country, which is by Muslims, and law enforcement is allowed to consistently surveil those who fit the profile, just like they would any other criminal.

When a Muslim is arrested for planning an attack or has already committed one, an immediate trial would be held to determine his guilt or innocence. There will be no waiting for 15 years, with seemingly endless appeals, while wasting taxpayer dollars on an undeserving slime ball.

If he/she is guilty, and is still alive, then he/she will be given his/her martyrdom without the thrill of killing anyone; no more abuse by Muslim terrorist groups, like CAIR, will be allowed either of the legal system, as they engage in “Lawfare” to undermine it.

For the deceased Muslim, and depending on what any investigation would reveal, his family, imam, or mosque would pay restitution to any and all survivors of the victims of the terrorist.

While no monetary remuneration could possibly be enough to pay for the lost life of a loved one, given the number of crimes committed thus far against Americans by dedicated Muslims for their cause, financially crippling or totally dissolving a mosque’s ability to be able to fund future terrorist acts would be well-worth the penalty imposed.

To Sum Up

Getting a grip on Muslim terrorism and then doing something about it is going to require making tough, gutsy, decisions that many are not going to like. But, then again, who really liked cleaning up all the body parts in New York, Fort Hood, and most recently San Bernadino?

The obedient Muslim, and many bleeding heart liberals, is destined to cry, “Foul!” over those decisions, even though their activities to conquer the world for the past 14 centuries have been nothing short of being foul. They have been hateful, vengeful, and vindictive.

Although Donald Trump’s comments shocked some and enraged others, and although they seem highly impractical in application, they are on the right track. We may not be able to ban all Muslims or even some of them.

Nevertheless, something significant needs to be done, lest all the killing and subversion continue until the Islamization of America is complete and we are all singing tunes of allegiance to a seventh-century warlord that very few know about, much less the religion he concocted which is instructing all the killing and subversion in the first place.

Be the first to comment on "Ban Muslims? Really? Is that the Answer?"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*