Since the end of the Cold War, the perceived external “threat” has shifted from red to green; from communism to Islam. Especially following Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists emerged as the single largest threat to the American way of life (whatever that even is), unfortunately dragging along with them the entirely peaceful, although probably somewhat wary, completely normal majority of Muslims.

Yet the debate over this threat has been completely distorted and has grown increasingly ugly. Not only is the statistical threat of actually being a victim of a terrorist attack ridiculously low, but equating the actions of a few with the many is a notoriously bankrupt mode of thinking.

Do the members of the apocolyptic Christian “Hutaree” militia in Michigan, who were plotting to attack and kill police officers and civilians before being arrested last March, represent the peaceful majority of Christians? Did the Irgun, a terrorist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s, represent the nature of Jews around the world?

Of course not.

Now this attack on Muslims is being exacerbated by opportunistic politicians, such as, regrettably and not quite surprisingly, Gerald Allen, an Alabama state senator representing our dear neighbor Cottondale. He has introduced a law that would ban Sharia, the law of the Quran, in our fair state’s courts. This is absurd on so many levels, starting with Allen not even being able to explain what Sharia is, according to The Anniston Star. Plus, no one has ever actually tried to use Sharia law in an Alabama court. We must not allow an important debate to be hijacked and warped for the political gain of some plotting legislator willing to prey on fear.

Edward Mostoller is a junior majoring in political science.