This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/23/donald-trump-muslim-registry-reject
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| We're Muslims who served our nation. Donald Trump must reject a registry We're Muslims who served our nation. Donald Trump must reject a registry | |
| (25 days later) | |
| As Muslim Americans who fought for our nation in uniform, we find ourselves at a particular intersection of an emerging debate. We firmly believe that everything must be done to protect our nation from domestic and foreign terror threats. But, we also find ourselves gravely concerned about measures to do so that put us, and our loved ones, in the crosshairs of efforts that rest on very shaky constitutional grounds. | As Muslim Americans who fought for our nation in uniform, we find ourselves at a particular intersection of an emerging debate. We firmly believe that everything must be done to protect our nation from domestic and foreign terror threats. But, we also find ourselves gravely concerned about measures to do so that put us, and our loved ones, in the crosshairs of efforts that rest on very shaky constitutional grounds. |
| This weekend, on two separate appearances on Sunday talkshows, President-elect Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, declared that he would not “rule out anything” when it came to a registry of Muslims, except that such a registry would “not be based” on a religion. Priebus then went on to declare that aspects of the faith of Islam were “problematic”, without elaborating. | This weekend, on two separate appearances on Sunday talkshows, President-elect Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, declared that he would not “rule out anything” when it came to a registry of Muslims, except that such a registry would “not be based” on a religion. Priebus then went on to declare that aspects of the faith of Islam were “problematic”, without elaborating. |
| Some have pointed to Priebus’ claim that no registry would be “based on religion” as ruling out a registry of Muslims. We take no such comfort. There are many different ways to set up a Muslim registry, without actually having it based on someone’s religion. | Some have pointed to Priebus’ claim that no registry would be “based on religion” as ruling out a registry of Muslims. We take no such comfort. There are many different ways to set up a Muslim registry, without actually having it based on someone’s religion. |
| Indeed, a previous program under the George W Bush administration, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), was a system based on one’s country of origin, not religion. That system required people coming in from certain countries, and those from certain countries here on visa, to be questioned and fingerprinted. Since the countries targeted were all predominantly Muslim, the registry was, in effect, a Muslim registry. That program was a failure, and scrapped. But not before it registered 100,000 men, none of whom were charged with any terrorism-related activity. | Indeed, a previous program under the George W Bush administration, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), was a system based on one’s country of origin, not religion. That system required people coming in from certain countries, and those from certain countries here on visa, to be questioned and fingerprinted. Since the countries targeted were all predominantly Muslim, the registry was, in effect, a Muslim registry. That program was a failure, and scrapped. But not before it registered 100,000 men, none of whom were charged with any terrorism-related activity. |
| Priebus seemed to be trying to thread the same constitutional and rhetorical needle. A registry that is “not based on religion” means very little, if its effect in practice is to force us Muslims, and those we love, and who love America, to register. That raises concerns about Priebus’ second statement. | Priebus seemed to be trying to thread the same constitutional and rhetorical needle. A registry that is “not based on religion” means very little, if its effect in practice is to force us Muslims, and those we love, and who love America, to register. That raises concerns about Priebus’ second statement. |
| When Priebus said there are “problematic” aspects of our faith, we can only speculate about what he meant. If he was referring to horrific acts committed in the name of Allah, by terrorists, we can only say that they are falsely acting in the name of our religion, as are those who engage in honor killings, and other acts of barbarism. It is fair to say that some people, acting in the name of Islam, are “problematic”. But that is not what Priebus said. He targeted the faith, itself. | When Priebus said there are “problematic” aspects of our faith, we can only speculate about what he meant. If he was referring to horrific acts committed in the name of Allah, by terrorists, we can only say that they are falsely acting in the name of our religion, as are those who engage in honor killings, and other acts of barbarism. It is fair to say that some people, acting in the name of Islam, are “problematic”. But that is not what Priebus said. He targeted the faith, itself. |
| This is no small thing to declare. | This is no small thing to declare. |
| It is not a very far journey from declaring aspects of a faith to be problematic to the United States, to saying that it is in the interest of the United States to better protect itself by getting rid of that faith, and its adherents, completely. As the NSEERS program proved, and as Priebus intentionally or unintentionally implied, that can be done without technically running any religious test of Americans. | It is not a very far journey from declaring aspects of a faith to be problematic to the United States, to saying that it is in the interest of the United States to better protect itself by getting rid of that faith, and its adherents, completely. As the NSEERS program proved, and as Priebus intentionally or unintentionally implied, that can be done without technically running any religious test of Americans. |
| In normal times, and under a normal incoming administration, any official would have had only one word to the question of whether he would rule out any kind of Muslim registry: “Yes.” Maybe it would be a six-word answer if you added, “We’re not a fascist state.” | In normal times, and under a normal incoming administration, any official would have had only one word to the question of whether he would rule out any kind of Muslim registry: “Yes.” Maybe it would be a six-word answer if you added, “We’re not a fascist state.” |
| But these are not normal times, and this is not a normal incoming administration. | But these are not normal times, and this is not a normal incoming administration. |
| The Qur’an teaches us that a good word is “like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches in the sky”, which bears fruit for all of us to see, and that “a bad word is like a bad tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, not having any stability”. | The Qur’an teaches us that a good word is “like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed and its branches in the sky”, which bears fruit for all of us to see, and that “a bad word is like a bad tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, not having any stability”. |
| The bad words of Reince Priebus are not deeply rooted in America, our constitution, or our national identity. They can and should be uprooted and tossed aside. | The bad words of Reince Priebus are not deeply rooted in America, our constitution, or our national identity. They can and should be uprooted and tossed aside. |
| The question now is, will Donald Trump uproot and cast aside that tree, or was Reince Priebus trying to tell us that Donald Trump planted it in the first place? | The question now is, will Donald Trump uproot and cast aside that tree, or was Reince Priebus trying to tell us that Donald Trump planted it in the first place? |
| With only two months before Donald Trump takes the reins of power, we deserve to know, right now. | With only two months before Donald Trump takes the reins of power, we deserve to know, right now. |
| Shahriar Chowdhury, US army. Years of service: 2001-2005 | Shahriar Chowdhury, US army. Years of service: 2001-2005 |
| Nabeel Razzak, US air force. Years of service: 2001-2015 | Nabeel Razzak, US air force. Years of service: 2001-2015 |
| Samir Joseph Hamel, US army. Years of service: 2001-2014 | Samir Joseph Hamel, US army. Years of service: 2001-2014 |
| Nassir Sheikh, US marine corps. Years of service: 1994-1998 | Nassir Sheikh, US marine corps. Years of service: 1994-1998 |
| Arif Chowdhury, US air force. Years of service: 2003-2006 | Arif Chowdhury, US air force. Years of service: 2003-2006 |
| The authors are members of VoteVets.org | The authors are members of VoteVets.org |