Susan Hasler’s CNN article...
is correct in some important areas, yet she uses a few facts to justify a
wrong-headed conclusion. This is a typical left leaning approach to what is
admittedly an overzealous response to terrorism. She's correct in that
Christians are often over the top in indicting "Muslims" for the
responsibility of a smaller segment who terrorize.
Let me be perfectly clear before I proceed. I believe that
the majority of Muslims I personally know are peace loving people and am
grateful for them being in the USA and contributing to our society.
I think where Susan's argument falls short is the notion
that somehow hate rhetoric is responsible for making terrorism worse. Also, she
criticizes a military response as extreme. On the one hand she acknowledges
that terrorism groups change tactics when funding dries up, so I’m curious why
she thinks USA rhetoric has any influence on what they do in the first
place? Terrorists are going to do what they’re going to do, right Susan? We have to
stop them in any way we can.
Not many I know of agree with Trump to "ban all
Muslims". Most people will say we need to take extra time and caution in
reviewing their credentials though, that's fair. Shame on anyone that infers we
should throw caution to the wind (Susan).
The facts missing from Susan’s Article?
The highly respected 2015 Pew Research poll
reports that the majority of Muslims (and over 75% in several major countries)
believe that Sharia law should be "the" law of their land.
Sorry, this is a non-starter in any discussion with free
people.
Question: What is the “bad stuff” of Sharia Law? Let’s dive into that question: Here is a simple wiki extract that includes a partial list of beliefs:
· The punishment for adultery and fornication such that it becomes a public ordeal, according to the Holy Qur'an is lashing. Before the revelation of these verses, Muhammad followed the Judaic law in implementing the punishment of death by stoning. This was only given if the person admitted to it repeatedly, was not intoxicated and knew the repercussions. Even then, if during the punishment he repented, he was to be released.
· A woman is allowed to be accompanied by another woman in giving testimony in court for financial affairs
· A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits. The concept being that Islam puts the responsibility of earning and spending on the family on the male. Any wealth the female earns is strictly for her own use. The female also inherits from both her immediate family and through agency of her husband, her in-laws as well.
To the left making Susan’s argument, do you believe that most Muslims accept the above?
To the left again: Do you believe anyone who believes in this type of thing is compatible with living in the USA?
If people desire to migrate to this country then our government is RIGHT in insisting they first denounce Sharia law and ALL terrorism. Let’s stop focusing on American hate rhetoric and keep the focus on the root causes. We welcome anyone in this country who believes in the sovereign jurisdiction of our American government, subject to no person and no religion, period. If a migrant application comes from a region thick with terrorism then we have the right to ask a lot more questions and we have the right to protect our citizens. The problem of hate rhetoric in the USA is a secondary problem and will evaporate once we deal with those committing terrorism.
I’ll close...
with one more Pew Research conclusion: “Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.” There you have it, let’s stop mincing words, Susan, we need more outcry against the bad guys, more advocacy for religious freedom and a free nation (with free people). Finally, we need less “Susan Hasler’s” in the world confusing root causes with symptoms.
Patrick Bouldin
