Bryan Fischer
Islam is a contagion that must be quarantined
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
I, speaking strictly for myself and for no one else, have argued that perhaps the time has come to suspend Islamic immigration into the United States. The reason is certainly not that all Muslims are bad people who who want to kill us. The great majority of Muslims are nice people who don't wish us any harm. But there is a significant and lethal minority that does want us dead, and the problem is we have no reliable way to identify them.
We routinely don't identify them until an attack has taken place, and then, of course, it is too late.
Over and over we read of Muslims who launch terror attacks in the name of Muhammad whose neighbors and friends in America tell us things like he was the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet, he was just a normal guy who liked to play basketball, he was fun, he was one of us, he was a friendly neighbor. Then the next thing we know he is shooting up Ft. Hood in the name of Allah, or blowing up the Boston Marathon, or trying to destroy a theater in Times Square where little children are watching The Lion King, or driving a truck with 16 tons of explosives into a target in Syria. Friends and family members express bewildered shock, declaring in all sincerity that they had absolutely no idea he was capable of such violent hatred.
The problem quite simply is that we have no way to distinguish the Muslims we do have to worry about from the ones we don't. Until the day comes when we have a foolproof method, we must in the name of national security be cautious with them all.
Kevin Williamson of National Review Online is suggesting something similar, although he does not go quite as far as I do. He writes (emphasis mine throughout):
Our military and intelligence operatives make the occasional horrific mistake, but we are not the sort of people who would, for example, massacre schoolchildren with malice aforethought in order to achieve our policy objectives. In the Islamic world, our opponents are in fact such people. It is not that they have no moral code – they have a moral code that excludes us. Al-Qaeda et al. view the West not as a competitor, but as a contagion.
Perhaps there is something to be learned from that view, namely that – the democracy project having failed – our best strategy is a quarantine. Middle Eastern occupations are not going to prevent another 9/11, but border control and immigration reform would go a long way toward achieving that. Visitors who are coming from jihadist hot spots, or who have some connection with them, should be subject to an extraordinary degree of scrutiny and supervision. Student visas, in particular, should be severely restricted: Access to an American university education is a coveted commodity, and denying it is our version of an oil embargo. Beyond that, immigration from the Middle East to the United States should be radically curtailed. That such actions would unfairly burden some citizens of those countries should be considered at most secondary to the fact that they would protect citizens of this country. Terrorism requires terrorists to be in proximity to targets. If the Middle East is indeed to be an exporter of terrorism and violence, we need not be an importer of it...
The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost or are going to be lost; Americans do not have the stamina for those fights. But those campaigns are not identical to the campaign against terrorism, which we continue, resolutely and inexplicably, to refuse to fight on the most critical fronts: on the borders and at the airport immigration windows. The attacks of 9/11 were carried out by men with box cutters, and it is not beyond imagining that those who wish us ill might consider the lawlessness that prevails to our south and figure out which way on the compass is north.
Perhaps Williamson's column, because of his stature, can start a necessary and long overdue debate about Islamic immigration. Consider this column my contribution to that debate.
A couple of centuries ago in London, a cholera outbreak threatened to devastate the entire population of the city. A frantic hunt ensued to track down the cause of this infectious outbreak. In one of the first breakthroughs in forensic medicine, the source was identified as a contaminated well. When the well was capped, the outbreak stopped.
When it comes to terrorism, it's time to cap the well. Islam is a contagious infection, a totalitarian ideology that threatens the social health of its infected host, the United States. This contagion needs to be contained by stopping Islamic immigration at our border. Just as we screen immigrants for contagious physical diseases, so we need to screen immigrants for contagious cultural diseases.
It's worth remembering that no one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States. Congress – not the president – decides who gets to come in and who doesn't. If Congress wishes to curtail immigration by Muslims in some way, it has the right and now the duty to do so.
The only immigrants from Muslim majority nations we should welcome to our land are Christians who are fleeing persecution, beatings, incarceration and death in Muslim lands solely because of their allegiance to Jesus Christ.
This all may sound quite radical, almost bizarre to some. But it is necessary if America is to remain strong and secure. Muslim fundamentalists can't blow us up if they're not here. We have enough problems with homegrown violence. There's no need to ship it in from overseas.No Muslim immigration, no 9/11.
Those who reject this proposal have an obligation to come up with an alternative that will work. Some will argue we should continue to admit Muslims and watch them like hawks. But why in the world would any nation choose to admit a population into its midst which must be monitored closely from day one? We should only admit immigrants we have good reason to believe will contribute to American society, not endanger it.
If curtailing Islamic immigration is necessary to secure the United States, somebody has to be the first to call for it. Consider the call made.
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism. This is not about hatred for Muslims but love for America and a desire to protect her.
And even if the accusation were true, which it is not, most of us would rather be called live Islamophobes than dead Americans.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
June 16, 2014
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
I, speaking strictly for myself and for no one else, have argued that perhaps the time has come to suspend Islamic immigration into the United States. The reason is certainly not that all Muslims are bad people who who want to kill us. The great majority of Muslims are nice people who don't wish us any harm. But there is a significant and lethal minority that does want us dead, and the problem is we have no reliable way to identify them.
We routinely don't identify them until an attack has taken place, and then, of course, it is too late.
Over and over we read of Muslims who launch terror attacks in the name of Muhammad whose neighbors and friends in America tell us things like he was the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet, he was just a normal guy who liked to play basketball, he was fun, he was one of us, he was a friendly neighbor. Then the next thing we know he is shooting up Ft. Hood in the name of Allah, or blowing up the Boston Marathon, or trying to destroy a theater in Times Square where little children are watching The Lion King, or driving a truck with 16 tons of explosives into a target in Syria. Friends and family members express bewildered shock, declaring in all sincerity that they had absolutely no idea he was capable of such violent hatred.
The problem quite simply is that we have no way to distinguish the Muslims we do have to worry about from the ones we don't. Until the day comes when we have a foolproof method, we must in the name of national security be cautious with them all.
Kevin Williamson of National Review Online is suggesting something similar, although he does not go quite as far as I do. He writes (emphasis mine throughout):
Our military and intelligence operatives make the occasional horrific mistake, but we are not the sort of people who would, for example, massacre schoolchildren with malice aforethought in order to achieve our policy objectives. In the Islamic world, our opponents are in fact such people. It is not that they have no moral code – they have a moral code that excludes us. Al-Qaeda et al. view the West not as a competitor, but as a contagion.
Perhaps there is something to be learned from that view, namely that – the democracy project having failed – our best strategy is a quarantine. Middle Eastern occupations are not going to prevent another 9/11, but border control and immigration reform would go a long way toward achieving that. Visitors who are coming from jihadist hot spots, or who have some connection with them, should be subject to an extraordinary degree of scrutiny and supervision. Student visas, in particular, should be severely restricted: Access to an American university education is a coveted commodity, and denying it is our version of an oil embargo. Beyond that, immigration from the Middle East to the United States should be radically curtailed. That such actions would unfairly burden some citizens of those countries should be considered at most secondary to the fact that they would protect citizens of this country. Terrorism requires terrorists to be in proximity to targets. If the Middle East is indeed to be an exporter of terrorism and violence, we need not be an importer of it...
The campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost or are going to be lost; Americans do not have the stamina for those fights. But those campaigns are not identical to the campaign against terrorism, which we continue, resolutely and inexplicably, to refuse to fight on the most critical fronts: on the borders and at the airport immigration windows. The attacks of 9/11 were carried out by men with box cutters, and it is not beyond imagining that those who wish us ill might consider the lawlessness that prevails to our south and figure out which way on the compass is north.
Perhaps Williamson's column, because of his stature, can start a necessary and long overdue debate about Islamic immigration. Consider this column my contribution to that debate.
A couple of centuries ago in London, a cholera outbreak threatened to devastate the entire population of the city. A frantic hunt ensued to track down the cause of this infectious outbreak. In one of the first breakthroughs in forensic medicine, the source was identified as a contaminated well. When the well was capped, the outbreak stopped.
When it comes to terrorism, it's time to cap the well. Islam is a contagious infection, a totalitarian ideology that threatens the social health of its infected host, the United States. This contagion needs to be contained by stopping Islamic immigration at our border. Just as we screen immigrants for contagious physical diseases, so we need to screen immigrants for contagious cultural diseases.
It's worth remembering that no one has a constitutional right to immigrate to the United States. Congress – not the president – decides who gets to come in and who doesn't. If Congress wishes to curtail immigration by Muslims in some way, it has the right and now the duty to do so.
The only immigrants from Muslim majority nations we should welcome to our land are Christians who are fleeing persecution, beatings, incarceration and death in Muslim lands solely because of their allegiance to Jesus Christ.
This all may sound quite radical, almost bizarre to some. But it is necessary if America is to remain strong and secure. Muslim fundamentalists can't blow us up if they're not here. We have enough problems with homegrown violence. There's no need to ship it in from overseas.No Muslim immigration, no 9/11.
Those who reject this proposal have an obligation to come up with an alternative that will work. Some will argue we should continue to admit Muslims and watch them like hawks. But why in the world would any nation choose to admit a population into its midst which must be monitored closely from day one? We should only admit immigrants we have good reason to believe will contribute to American society, not endanger it.
If curtailing Islamic immigration is necessary to secure the United States, somebody has to be the first to call for it. Consider the call made.
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism. This is not about hatred for Muslims but love for America and a desire to protect her.
And even if the accusation were true, which it is not, most of us would rather be called live Islamophobes than dead Americans.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
