Confusion still prevails over whether or not Donald Trump, the Republican Party's presidential front-runner, wants to set up a database of Muslims living in the United States. At an event in Iowa on Thursday night, he said he would force Muslims to register in the wake of the Paris attacks, but retreated Friday morning after a firestorm of criticism comparing him to the Nazis. However, addressing a political rally on Saturday morning, Trump said he would "absolutely take database on the people coming in from Syria." Trump's suggestion was part of an attempt to strengthen his national security credentials by creating fears and suspicions about Muslims in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks. But he was not the only one to take some of the most strident positions. Another top Republican candidate, Ben Carson, likened the largely Muslim Syrian refugees to dogs. Some of them might be "rabid", he said, so we should keep them all out. A third Republican presidential hopeful has called for banning all refugees except Christians from five Middle Eastern countries. Others have gone further and argued that all Muslims should bear greater scrutiny because it is too difficult to tell which ones are the radicals. If you think that only the Republicans harbor ill-feelings toward Muslims, remember that on Thursday 47 House Democrats joined with 242 Republicans to pass a bill placing new security constraints on President Barack Obama's pledge to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees. Earlier this week, the Democratic mayor of Roanoke, Va., recalled the internment of Japanese Americans in camps during World War II, suggesting the same treatment for Syrian refugees. Such calls for profiling by political leaders and policymakers is only part of a disturbingly familiar pattern that emerges after every terrorist attack. The other parts are anti-Muslim rhetoric in news coverage by mainstream media, acts of discrimination and violence targeting Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, and government actions and policies that single them out in the name of national security. Meanwhile, corporate media outlets, led by cable news networks, are spreading hysteria fueling anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiments – something they did, to devastating effect, in the aftermath of Sept. 11 attacks. Xenophobic and divisive rhetoric creates a climate of fear and suspicion of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. Over the weekend, a mosque in St. Petersburg, Florida, received a threatening voicemail. In Orlando, a Muslim family is said to have found a bullet hole in their garage door. If the history of religious or racial violence teaches us anything, it is that such attacks against helpless minorities are always preceded by persistent media campaigns or unfavorable views expressed by those who shape public opinion — views that, if they don't incite violence, makes them at least justifiable. That is why even quarrels over parking space lead to murderous violence if one party to the dispute happens to be Muslim, as we saw in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in February this year when three Muslim students including two sisters were killed by a white male. Though American leaders go out of their way to declare that their war is not against Islam, people like Craig Stephen Hicks, who killed the students in Chapel Hill, are influenced by what their friends and neighbors say. True, there were anti-Muslim hate crimes in US even before 9/11 — between 20 and 30 per year. But, according to the FBI's "Uniform Crime Reports" program, that number rose more than tenfold to nearly 500 in 2001. In the years since, annual hate crimes against Muslims have consistently hovered in the 100-150 range, roughly five times higher than the pre-9/11 rate. This is likely to rise unless those who mold public opinion try to choose their words carefully. This is especially important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack when the people are prepared to believe the worst about those they consider their enemies.
