HERE

Surname 5

Name

Institution Affiliation

Date

SHOULD DONALD TRUMP BAN MUSLIM?

Much of the both the major and minor terror activities, not only in the United States of America but across the world have been hugely associated with the Muslim, the Islamic nations, and the Islam religion. Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are some of the top terrorists in the history of the US and the world at large, and they all had links with Islam. More so, Al Qaida and Al Shabaab, two of major terrorist groups around the globe are also grounded on Islamic principles. Because of these factors, Islam and the Muslims have largely been perceived as cruel persons. Nations have shown their concern by being keen about the activities of these people within their boundaries.

In the United States of America, a ban has even been placed against their migration into the country (Rothwell and Krol 18). However, the ban has aroused different feeling from different parties. Made by the current president of America Donald Trump, this essay analyzes the situation whether this ban is fair, hence should stand or is not and so ought to be lifted. The likes of Britain and England have condemned this ban and even presented petitions calling for the US government to lift it. Conversely, I feel that the ban is a good one especially for the safety of the United States of America, and so should stand. I think I agree that Donald Trump should ban Muslim. However, if we look into the grievances of such nations like England and Britain among others that are against this ban, there is actually a point in their idea. For instance, the ban will be a negative effect on the innocent persons like refugees. The likely and immediate nation to fall victim of this ban is Syria. The executive order of President Triumph to ban the Muslims immigration into America meant that the support of the US’ government of the refugee program in Syria was uplifted for at least 120 days according to Rothwell and Krol (37). In this situation, the ban will just punish the innocent refugees who are already struggling for survival. Once again, they will find access to food, health, clothing, shelter and water among other needs very difficult.

More so, other critics of this ban fear that it is when it will result in what Trump and his US government are trying to overcome by the same ban. Their view is that the ban will only increase the terrorist attacks on the United States of America and its affiliates and not decrease. The rationale behind this phenomenon is that one of the fundamental purposes of al-Qaeda and Isis, some of the worldwide terrorist organization in causing massacres and destruction is to provoke an overreaction from governments directed against the Muslim societies and states. Such collective punishments, as explicates Foster (126), massively upsurges empathy for Salafi-jihadi movements among the 1.6 billion Muslims, a group that makes up three-thirds of the population of the world. Critics believe that the Trump administration missed a point in justifying its placement of the ban by claiming that it is only following the lessons well-read from the destruction of the Twin Towers and 9/11 (Cockburn 14). They insist that it has learned unerringly the erroneous lesson. The great victory of Mohammed Atta and his 18 captors was not on the day that they died together with other 3,000 persons, but the time when President Bush retorted by sending the US armies into combats, which are still on, in Iraq and Afghanistan (Cockburn 33). And critics fear that Trump might provoke these movements again by this ban. In fact, they might draw their attention even more. By the ban, Trump is establishing his administration as a clear enemy of the Muslim communities, hence the main target of the terrorist activities of the al-Qaeda, Isis and other terrorist groups.

It is also clear, according to the critics that this ban might increase not only the number of people joining the al-Qaeda and Isis terrorist activities, but also give rise to other such movements. Still, on this, a lesson is drawn from the Bush’s era. Al-Qaeda and its replicas had been a trivial body with conceivably less than a thousand militants in North West Pakistan and South East Afghanistan. But because of the calamitous decisions of Bush, following 9/11, the movement today has more than ten thousands battalions, cells in various nations and billions of dollars in resource according to Cockburn (22). History has a tendency of repeating itself and critics have registered their fear that due to this ban, there possibly going to be double the current number of terrorist movement organizations and battalions. Conversely, I would say that almost everything in life involves one or two risks. Even when you want to make a profit, you must first be ready to suffer losses. Who said because they are capable of launching terrorist activities so they are just left to enjoy all the freedoms and benefits like the good and innocent non-Muslims? That is blackmail that I am sure even if it was I in Trump's shoe, I would not have accepted. We all know that America does not negotiate with terrorists and I think we should also add that America cannot be blackmailed by terrorists.

There is noise that the ban violates the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which prohibited all discriminations against immigrants on the basis of national origin. Let me ask a question, who will welcome a thief in his or her home and still feel safe? There is always some tension, something that the USA is trying to avoid. Besides, categorizing this ban as a discrimination factor is not ideal. In the first place, not every person is prohibited from entering the US. Those with green cards and more surprisingly those from the nations that participated in the 9/11 event, for instance, are not limited. Like Trump said, as writes Foster (203), the ban has actually nothing to do with religion and discrimination of any nature but about terror and the safety of the United States of America as a country.

What I believe is that the ban might provoke the Islamic terrorist activities but will also keep them far from causing any harm to the US. With their movement in the country prohibited and the US marines, air force and army on the alert to safeguard the nation, especially from the borders, it will really be very difficult for the like of Al-Qaida to cause problems to the US. One way of winning a war against terrorists is to show them that you are not afraid of them. This US’ ban has not only done this way but also kept them far away from the country thereby reducing their chances of causing problems.

Terrorists do not deserve mercy because they show no mercy by killing innocent people. They are a group of people that should not enjoy the privileges that other persons do. For them, they even deserve to be discriminated. I oppose their association with other people because if they will not kill them or cause them other problems, they will negatively influence them. If we were talking about innocent Muslims, this ban would actually be unfair and I would not even support it. But for the terrorists, you either keep the bad guys away or lose the innocent people. Let me hope the likes of Britain, England and other critics have underlined my point. For me, this ban is a good measure, especially for the safety of the US, and so I agree that Donald Trump should ban Muslim.

References

Rothwell C. & Krol . Everything you need to know about Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban', (2017). Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/everything-need-know-donald-trumps-muslim-ban/

Foster. A. What is the Donald Trump Muslim ban? All the facts and everything you need to know , 2017) . Retrieved from: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/761151/Donald-Trump-Muslim-ban-facts-immigration-executive-order-banning-travellers-to-US

Cockburn P... Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ will only make terrorist attacks, more, not less likely, 2017). Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-muslim-ban-terrorism-isis-only-make-it-worse-a7552776.html