Its Not a Muslim Ban, Maybe it Should Be

The same old song and dance is upon us. The Trump travel ban, which limits entry from North Korea, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Venezuela, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Cue the cries of “Muslim ban!’ from MSNBC and The Guardian.

Of course, the very idea that the Trump administration’s travel ban is a Muslim ban is accepted only by those determined to make their ignorance invincible. A travel ban effecting only 8% of Muslims worldwide, restricting anti-religion North Korea, and leaving the door open to visas from the majority of Muslim majority countries is obviously not a Muslim ban.

If the leftist response is predictable, perhaps the right-wing response is even moreso. Across social media platforms, Trump supporters are quick to state the relevant facts about the security necessity of the ban and the legal precedent upholding Trump’s ability to enact it.

They’re not wrong. They’re just not going far enough.

While our mainstream media talking heads punt this issue back and forth, we have Lena Masri of the Council On American Islamic Relations (CAIR) going so far as to state that “[The ruling] sits alongside other similarly shameful Supreme Court decisions allowing Japanese American internment and segregation.” (

Pretty standard hysterical “progressive” fare - except for the small fact that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator ( in the largest terrorism financing trial in United States history, the United States vs. Holy Land Foundation trial, adjudicated in Texas in 2008.

That’s right. We’re actually giving an entity recognized by the federal investigative apparatus as having direct ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood within the past decade a seat at the table in the travel ban debate.

The level at which groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood (and their hundreds of affiliate organizations) are operating in the United States to wage civilizational jihad (Clare Lopez with Q Society in Sydney, Australia 5 September 2014) should be striking fear into the heart of the Trump administration. Federal investigations should be being opened, security meetings should be taking place on a weekly basis, and the average law enforcement official should have a working understanding of Islamic doctrine and especially Sharia law.

What do we have instead? Our journalistic establishment and political elites bickering about whether or not Trump limiting visas for 7 countries is “racist”.

It’s time we stop playing around and address the root of the issue. Trump is not restricting or banning Muslim immigration. But would it really be such an outrageous thing if he did?

American thought today has been almost entirely poisoned by indifferentism. Though some Catholics and the majority of right-wing evangelical Christians will work from their their Christian values in how they vote and concieve of public policy, for the average American, religion is only a personal matter, and not always a weighty one. For Christians in name only, the majority of American Jews, and of course American secular folks and New Age worshippers, religion doesn’t impact life much at all. It’s a cultural thing, it’s a thing you do to give your life a little more meaning. The idea that a person’s religious beliefs could be significant enough to die for is simply foreign to American culture in the 21st century.

Islam is not indifferent to other religions or to secularism. It is doctrinally, historically, and presently hostile towards them. And, more importantly, Islam doctrinally demands that the adherents of these other worldviews be subjugated to Muslims, by violent force if necessary.

All published Sharia law defines jihad as warfare against non-believers until the entire world comes under Sharia. All of it. Including The Reliance of The Traveller, a book of fiqh (law) widely accepted by Islamic jurors, bearing an impramatur from Al-Azhar University, the highest seat of scholarship in Sunni Islam.

These are not “extremist interpretations” of Islam. This is basic, orthodox Islamic belief. Imagine, for a moment, if the Vatican (an imperfect but suitable comparison - Islam does not have an explicit hierarchy like Catholicism) put their seal of approval on a book stating explicitly that those who apostasize should be killed( Such a thing would be roundly condemned, and Catholics who assented to follow such doctrines would be rightly viewed with caution.

The absolutely horrific opinions of Muslims across the world only confirm this fact ( The peaceful Islam constantly cited by groups like CAIR (even though they themselves support the very “version” of Islam promulgated by jihadis across the globe) does not exist. These beliefs have been part of Islam since the days of Muhammad and the early Caliphs.

What does exist, of course, is Muslims who don’t follow much of Islam. These are real human beings, many of them born into this barbaric ideology in countries where leaving isn’t an option (hint: the fact that there is a risk of violence for those who apostasize is a pretty clear indication that Islam isn’t peaceful). It is not easy to discuss these issues without feeling genuine compassion for these people, especially those who are living in the sorts of chaotic political and military situations the Trump administration noted in the travel ban list.

However, if we are to be truly compassionate as a nation, we must start from a foundation of reality. The reality is that if any other group held these beliefs as a political ideology, we would be examining the members of said group carefully before allowing them to live among those they may come to oppress.

The First Amendment is less of an issue in this case than the cultural understanding of what religion means to people who actually follow their faith - and Muslims have American Christians beat by a landslide. Perhaps a Muslim ban would be a poor solution compared to other measures, such as designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and seeking to dismantle their jihad-funding apparatuses, but that doesn’t mean we should presume that discriminating against Muslims in terms of immigration is inherently evil.

It’s a discussion we need to have, travel ban or no travel ban.

Political Journalist, Saucy Cynic, Quintessential Analyst. Never a Stenographer. Katy Grimes is a longtime political journalist, analyst and writer. As a credentialed Capitol reporter, Senior Correspondent for the Flash Report, and Senior Media Fellow with E&E Legal, Katy covers the California Legislature and state agency politics from the State Capitol. A California native, Katy lives in Sacramento with her husband Terry. Her son is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, now a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. 916.417.6780

Kathy Grimes


Add Comment

View Details
Sold Out