Muslim Profiling is Not Racism but a Moral Necessity

If neo-Nazis engaged in a series of assaults against Jews and blacks in New York City, would the NYPD be justified in patrolling neighborhoods known to be heavily populated by neo-Nazis in order to solve the crimes and prevent future attacks? Of course it would. Would the profiling implicit in this practice be an instance of racism? Of course not.

Likewise, if communists engaged in a wave of vandalism against businesses in Los Angeles, would the LAPD be warranted in patrolling neighborhoods known to be heavily populated by communists in order to identify and apprehend the vandals? Of course it would. Would the LAPD’s focus on communists be an act of racism? The question is silly.

The same holds true when Muslims engage in ideologically motivated assaults against Americans in U.S. cities: The FBI, local police departments, and other security agencies are justified in patrolling neighborhoods known to be heavily populated by Muslims in order to identify and apprehend those involved in or linked to the attacks. Security agencies are justified in recognizing and acting on the fact that Muslims are more likely than non-Muslims to be involved in the assaults. And such profiling is not racism. It is commonsense defense of the rights of Americans.

Contrary to the evasions of leftists, Islam is not a race. It’s a religion. It’s a chosen set of ideas—just as Nazism and communism are chosen sets of ideas. One key difference is that, unlike those ideologies, Islam is the ideology of our current military enemy.

Given that Islamic jihadists (sponsored and encouraged by Islamic regimes) have murdered thousands of Americans and aim to convert or kill all of us—and given that Islamic scripture explicitly orders Muslims to convert or kill infidels—U.S. security agencies are not merely warranted in profiling Muslims; they have a moral and legal responsibility to do so. They should regard neighborhoods with large Muslim populations as potential hotbeds of jihadist activity, and they should regard Muslims in general as suspicious for embracing the murderous ideology of the enemy that seeks to murder us.

(Relatedly, the U.S. government has a moral and constitutional responsibility to eliminate Islamic regimes that sponsor jihad against America. That responsibility is discussed in depth here, here, and here.)

If people choose to embrace irrational ideas that call for rights violations—as Muslims do regardless of whether they act consistently in accordance with those ideas—then, when they are treated accordingly, they should not be surprised.

If Muslims don’t want to be legitimately regarded as potentially involved in jihad, they should renounce Islam and embrace rational ideas instead. Doing so would improve their lives in every other respect as well. At least it would so long as devout Muslims don’t murder them for apostasy. That grim possibility underscores the nature of the Islamic beast and the commonsense need to profile Muslims.

Until Muslims choose to stop taking Islam seriously, or are forced to stop doing so, Muslim profiling will be a practical and moral necessity for lovers of life and liberty. We should accept this fact and articulate it unapologetically.


Return to Top

Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Commenters must use their real names, and comments may not exceed 400 words. For a comment to be approved, it must be civil, substantive, and on topic. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, unsubstantiated accusations, baseless assertions, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article are not permitted. Comments that violate these rules will not be approved. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.

6 Responses to Muslim Profiling is Not Racism but a Moral Necessity

    mkkevitt April 5, 2016 at 7:01 pm #

    What if ‘moderate’ Muslims rejected Muslim fundamentalism and reformed Islam, formally? Wouldn’t that allow them to embrace rational ideas, and enter the 21st. century? Christianity used to be as bad as Islam is today, but it was reformed, and there are a couple billion of them today living in the 21st. century.

    We might want Muslims to simply reject Islam entirely, but they won’t, not any more than Christians rejected Christianity. I think the most we can expect is for Muslims to reform Islam rather than reject it. In a nation of inalienable individual rights and laissez-faire, people with irrational ideas, including reformed religionists, will pay for their own irrationalities. They’ll be able to, and still live normally, within law. It’s only criminals, including fundamentalist irrationals and religionists initiating physical force, who won’t be able to. So justice will be extracted from them, by law. Mike Kevitt

    William Dwyer April 5, 2016 at 7:13 pm #

    What would profiling Muslims to prevent violent attacks mean in practice? What he says is too general — too abstract. It needs to be concretized, because too much is left open to interpretation. For example, what would be the purpose of patrolling Muslim neighborhoods simply because some Muslims are known to be terrorists?

    Obviously, if a violent crime has been committed in the name of Islam, you would look for the perpetrator based on appearance and other relevant factors, just as you would in policing any crime. So, of course, you would search in those neighborhoods that were most likely to involve the perpetrator. But would you set up regular police patrols, stopping and searching Muslims at random, just on the off chance you might catch someone with bomb making materials who was preparing to stage an attack?

    Wouldn’t you have to have at least some evidence of a planned attack in order to avoid interfering with a person’s civil liberties?

    Steve Chipman April 6, 2016 at 7:37 am #

    Is it true that Muslims in general embrace the murderous ideology of the jihadists? My impression is that the vast majority of Muslims, although irrational in their beliefs like all who follow a religious philosophy, are peaceful. Are not the jihadists, rightly regarded as an enemy, a tiny minority of Muslims? Am I naive?

      mkkevitt April 7, 2016 at 12:08 pm #

      In any human culture, most people hold to irrational notions, religion being about the most common. The irrational is the source of crime. But, in all human culture, only a small %age of people are criminals, at least in the sense of having criminal intent, acting on criminal plans or having a criminal mind. This is true even in very statist, including theocratic, countries. Within that small %age, there are many types of criminals. Jihadists are one such type. Many people (and not just a few people) running countries by means of statist regimes are crooks in the sense I mention, and those statist regimes are, as such, criminal regimes by criminal plan, not governments by law.

      Some people advocate rendering Islam non-existent, like an extinct animal specie. That can’t be done any more than irrationality can be rendered non-existent from humanity, because of human nature: volition, and fallibility. Likewise, there’ll always be elements of crime running, or at least trying to run, countries.

      Existence of irrationality, when it doesn’t become crime (initiatory physical force), must be tolerated, meaning put up with. When it becomes crime, it’s intolerable. But when it becomes part of running a country, it’s automatically intolerable. That’s because it’s automatically crime, even if the perpetrators are not criminals in the sense I mention.

      The best we can do about jihadists, criminal regimes running countries (and criminals trying to infest, infect and displace government by law) and about the more regular domestic crime is to vigilantly have and keep government by law, use it to fight domestic crime including all attempts to infest government, without exemption, and to protect against foreign criminals including criminal regimes running countries.

      THIS requires a culture wide prevalence of reason which, in government by law, must be as pure as possible in the state of human knowledge at all times, ongoing. Today, we must start with reason’s rediscovery and re-spreading throughout the culture. Mike Kevitt

    William Dwyer April 7, 2016 at 2:39 am #

    Steve, I think you may be underestimating the support of American Muslims for sharia law and for jihad. I was surprised to find the following statistics:

    to a recent survey of U.S. Muslims, conducted by the Center for Security Policy, more than half (51%) believe either that they should have the choice of American or
    shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply

    [Since there are 6.67 million Muslims in the U.S. (, that means that over 3.4 million American Muslims believe in the legitimacy of sharia law.]
    When that question was put to the broader U.S. population,
    the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S.
    Constitution (86% to 2%).

    Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be
    subject to American courts. These notions were powerfully rejected by
    the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national
    survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to
    the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts
    and tribunals here in the U.S.

    more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled
    believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who
    give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” [That means that over 1.6 million American Muslims believe it’s okay to use violence against those who offend Islam.]

    contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled
    said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or
    anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be

    one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the
    United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land
    in this country. [Which means that
    over 1.3 million American Muslims believe in overthrowing the government
    of the United States in order to institute sharia.] (

    Needless to say, these are very disturbing statistics.

      mkkevitt April 9, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

      Disturbing, but, as some provisions of sharia are initiations of force, some others are not. Muslims must be allowed to practice sharia provisions that are not initiations of force. But they must be forbidden, by law, to practice those that are. As for sharia courts, big deal. Let ’em have ’em, within their religion, as long as those courts don’t recognize or enforce sharia provisions that are initiations of force. As for non-initiation of force provisions, the courts’ rulings apply only within the religion, just like an employer enforcing its rules on its own time and premises, or like any individual enforcing his rules within his own residence. Mike Kevitt

Leave a Reply