Islamic historian on Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

What a concept — listening to someone who’s actually studied Islam:

[A] good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis. But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite. Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. […]

Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred–not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil.

And yet there are those who will still cry “racist” or “Islamophobe”, even though, as Dr. Furnish points out in his article, all 82 of the groups designated terrorist by the United Arab Emirates are Islamic. Presumably, the UAE is ruled by Islamophobes.

UA-2941127-3