Monday, February 27, 2017

For Islamists, Freedom is a One-Way Street



For Islamists, Freedom is a One-Way Street

by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute
February 24, 2017
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Originally published under the title "Extremist Muslims' One-Way Street."

Trump's January 27 executive order temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries has unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties.
President Donald Trump's executive order of January 27, 2017, temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days, until vetting procedures can be put in place -- has caused international controversy, sparking protests both in the Western and Islamic worlds, including in increasingly Islamist Turkey.
This article does not intend to discuss whether Trump's ban is a racist, illegal order, or a perfectly justified action in light of threatened American interests. The ban, right or wrong, has once again unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties and on what is and what is NOT racist. Extremist Muslims' understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are "good" and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims -- often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims -- often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.
Islamic extremists understand freedom as a one-way street intended for Muslim minorities only.
Muslims have been in a rage across the world. Iran's swift and sharp answer came in a Tweet from Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who said that the ban was "a great gift to extremists." A government statement in Tehran said that the U.S. travel restrictions were an insult to the Muslim world, and threatened U.S. citizens with "reciprocal measures." Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.
Sudan, host and supporter of various extremist Muslim terror groups including al-Qaeda, said the ban was "very unfortunate." In Iraq, a coalition of paramilitary groups called on the government to ban U.S. nationals from entering the country and to expel those currently on Iraqi soil.
In Turkey where the extremist Islamic government is unusually soft on Trump's ban -- in order not to antagonize the new president -- a senior government official called the order "a discriminative decision." Deputy Prime Minister and government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus said:
Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that rising Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings have a great weight on this decision. Taking such a decision in a country such as America, where different ethnic and religious groups are able to co-exist, is very offensive.
The ruling party's deputy chairman, Yasin Aktay, called the ban "racist," and said: "This is totally against human rights, a big violation of human rights." Aktay also said that he had started to "worry about the future of the U.S."

Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Gormez.
Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Gormez, praised the Americans who rushed to the airports to protest the ban. "[This] is very important. It gives us hope," he said -- presumably meaning that non-Muslim protestors will continue to advocate for Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands.
Turkish government bigwigs and the top Islamic authority seem not to have heard of their own country's dismal human rights record when it comes to non-Muslim minorities. Most recently, Turkey's Association of Protestant Churches noted in a report that hate speech against the country's Christians increased in both the traditional media and social media. It said that hate speech against Protestants persisted throughout 2016, in addition to physical attacks on Protestant individuals and their churches.
Nevertheless, the Islamist's one-way sympathy for human rights (for Muslims) and his one-way affection for discrimination (against non-Muslims) is not just Turkish, but global. What is the treatment of non-Muslim (or sometimes even non-extremist Muslim) visitors to some of the Muslim cities and sites in the countries that decry Trump's "racist," and "discriminative" ban that "violates human rights?"
In a 2016 visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Muslim custodians of the site did not allow entry to this author, despite the Turkish passport submitted to them, saying "you do not look Muslim enough." And Muslims now complain of "discrimination?" Incidentally, Al Aqsa Mosque is, theoretically at least, open to visits from non-Muslims, except on Fridays.

Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy city of Mecca.
Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy city of Mecca. In 2013, the Saudi Minister of Justice, Mohamed el-Eissi, insisted that "the cradle of the Muslim sanctities will not allow the establishment of any other places of worship."
The Saudi ban on other religious houses of worship comes from a Salafi tradition that prohibits the existence of two religions in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Saudi kingdom, the law requires that all citizens must be Muslims; the government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion; and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.
In Iran, where even non-Muslim female visitors must wear the Islamic headscarf, the government continues to imprison, harass, intimidate and discriminate against people based on religious beliefs. A 2014 U.S. State Department annual report noted that non-Muslims faced "substantial societal discrimination, aided by official support." At the release of the report, then Secretary of State John Kerry said: "Sadly, the pages of this report that are being released today are filled with accounts of minorities being denied rights in countries like Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, many others."
In Iran, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are not recognized unless the husband produces proof that he has converted to Islam. The mullahs' government does not ensure the right of citizens to change or renounce their religious faith. Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death. In 2013, 79 people from religious minorities were sentenced to a total of 3,620 months in prison, 200 months of probation, 75 lashes and 41 billion rials in fines [approximately $1.3 million].
Why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of Trump's travel ban?
That being the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.? Why, for instance, does Turkey never criticizes the extreme shortcomings of freedoms in the Muslim world but calls the U.S. ban "racist?"
Why does the Iranian government think that Trump's ban is a "gift to the [Muslim] extremists?" In claiming that travel bans would supposedly fuel extremism, how come Iran does not think that its own persecution of religious minorities is a "gift" to non-Muslims?
Such questions will probably remain unanswered in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the "infidels" who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same "infidels" in their own lands.
Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based political analyst and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics:  Immigration, US policy  |  Burak Bekdil



Unfit for Duty



Unfit for Duty

The new National Security Advisor - Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond McMaster - and the Counter-Terrorism advisor to the President of the United States - Sebastian Gorka - both unequivocally state the "terrorist" threat America faces has nothing to do with "true" Islam.

Both men are catastrophically wrong and, therefore, are leading America down a disastrous road towards defeat.

     

The New York TimesGuardian, and CNN all report Lt General McMaster told members of the National Security Council Thursday he felt "radical Islamic terrorism" was an unhelpful way to describe terrorism because becoming a terrorist is actually "un-Islamic" in the first place.

In a talk he gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in May 2016, LtGen McMaster said, "There is a cycle going on where groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, you know, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents."

This is incoherent and factually wrong.  LtGen McMaster wrote a book entitled "Dereliction of Duty."  He may want to look in the mirror to see if he is doing the same thing in this war he accused President Johnson of doing in Vietnam.

100% of all Islamic doctrine, from elementary, junior high, and high school Islamic text books as well as the highest authorities in Islamic jurisprudence, to include Al Azhar University in Egypt, all clearly and doctrinally state Islam is a "complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)" governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  100% of all sharia mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule, and 100% of sharia only defines "jihad" as warfare against non-Muslims.

"The duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic state."
What Islam is All About
(most widely used junior high text book in U.S. Islamic schools)

The violence Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Boston bombers, the attackers in Paris, the Fort Lauderdale shooter, and all the jihadis we have faced over the past 20 years quote authoritative Islamic doctrine in support of what they do.  Al Qaeda and ISIS have never misquoted sharia in furtherance of their actions.

In the last 15 years it has been made clear - the more muslims study Islam and sharia, the more likely they are to support and participate in jihad.

So the questions remains...what the hell is Lieutenant General McMaster talking about because he is not talking truthfully about a real and present danger to these United States?  He is doing exactly what our enemy wants him to do - creating an imaginary target for us to chase while our real enemy prepares to defeat us.

Nearly 16 years after 9/11, the Global Islamic Movement has taken down nations, expanded its power, and defeated the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because leaders like McMaster decided they were too busy to stop and learn the enemy threat doctrine - Sharia - and instead have been given a counterfactual understanding of our enemy by Islamic advisors who are all batting for the other team.

The President's Counterterrorism advisor, Sebastian Gorka, is "over the moon" LtGen McMaster is the new National Security Advisor.  However, Gorka's lack of honesty about the Islamic threat raises much more serious questions.

Some have been lulled into believing he is on the right track because he uttered the word "jihad" but defeating this enemy takes more than pretending to know what you are talking about.

Speaking at CPAC this past weekend, Gorka stated:  "Zuhdi (Jasser) knows it better than anybody because he understands that this isn't about poverty or lack of education. It's about people who are fighting for the soul of Islam - not a war with Islam, but a war inside Islam; as King Abdullah, as General Sisi has said, for which version is going to win."

Utter nonsense.  There is one version of Islam and one Sharia.  To say otherwise is to be factually wrong, but also dangerous when national strategies are being built off that utter nonsense.

When one's duties include national security responsibilities, one has a professional duty to know the enemy or do due diligence to know the enemy.  To fail to do so makes one professionally negligent in one's duties.  When people die (Ft Lauderdale, Boston, Orlando, Ft Hood...) because a person is unprofessional in his/her duties it is called "criminal negligence" and doctors and lawyers go to jail for such behavior.

Several years ago at a town hall presentation hosted by Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL, Sebastian Gorka stated "99.9% of muslims do not support terrorism (jihad)" despite a mountain of evidence and polling data proving this comment untrue, and the fact the entire purpose of Islam is to wage jihad until the world is dominated by Islamic rule (sharia).

Dr. Gorka also writes in his book, Defeating Jihad, we are not at war with Islam (p.129) but our enemy is "the ideology of takfiri jihad" (p.123).

No muslim jihadi who fought on the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else, nor any of the jihadis who have died in Europe in the United States attacking us nor the jihadis we have arrested have said they are "takfiri jihadis"  They have said they are "Muslims" waging "Jihad in the cause of Allah" to "establish a caliphate under sharia."

This is what Islamic doctrine commands them to do.


On page 144 of his book, Gorka ends with the call for the United States to spend billions of dollars supporting "Muslim reformers" in their "ideological war to delegitimize the message of holy war against the infidel and bolster modern interpretations of Islam."  This demonstrates Sebastian Gorka is either completely free of any clue of Islamic doctrine or is intentionally lying about what Islam actually teaches.

Since these ideas and strategies to use "moderate Muslims" to ensure the "other version" of Islam wins are based in fantasy not reality, these policies will necessarily fail - and have failed the United States for 15 years.

Is that Dr. Gorka's intention?  Does he not know that strategies to win a war must be based in the reality of who the enemy is?  Why would Sebastian Gorka put forth such and idea when he knows what he is saying is untrue?

Is it possible Dr. Gorka has remained strategically incoherent for 15 years during this global war?  Is he working on behalf of some outside entity to intentionally mislead the President of the United States, or is he is simply putting his paycheck ahead of the American people and his duty.

The United States will lose this war against the Global Islamic Movement if we do not clearly define the enemy and target the enemy.  We cannot hit a target we do not identify and cannot defeat an enemy we do not target.

Our warfighting doctrine calls for an analysis of our enemy based on how the enemy defines itself.  We begin our analysis there.  Something we have not done since 9/11/01.  If we did, our entire national security apparatus, including our military, would have been studying and teaching authoritative sharia and more of our soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen would be alive today because of it.

Keeping LtGen McMaster and Sebastian Gorka in their current positions will ensure America remains strategically incoherent and will guarantee our defeat in this war against the Global Islamic Movement.

As always, this war will be won or lost at the local level because our federal government is still failing us.

************

Take UTT's 10 for 12 Challenge
If you do not already support UTT...
Begin by Donating $10 each month for 12 months
Make a Difference.  CLICK HERE to Help.
Your donations to our A4A Campaign is tax deductible
UTT is the only organization in America training Law Enforcement professionals how to map out the jihadi threat, proactively find jihadis, and working with state leaders to dismantle the jihadi networks at the state level.  We need your help.

************
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE


Upcoming UTT Law Enforcement Training

March 7-9:          Rapides Parish Louisiana

March 21-23:      Glendale, AZ

April 3-5:             Meridian, Mississippi

To register, email us at register@understandingthethreat.com.  Please specify which training you are interested in attending.


Seats Still Available for UTT's Train the Trainer Program

UTT will be conducting our Train the Trainer program April 22-28.  This program is the only one of its kind in the world and will prepare law enforcement, military, national guard, and civilians to teach and present information about the Global Islamic Movement and much more to leaders, citizens, and others.

If you are interested, please reach out to UTT at info@understandingthethreat.com.



STAY CONNECTED:
Like me on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Palestinians: Why a "Regional Peace Process" Will Fail

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS
Donate

In this mailing:

Palestinians: Why a "Regional Peace Process" Will Fail

by Khaled Abu Toameh  •  February 27, 2017 at 5:00 am
  • Many Palestinians sometimes refer to Arab leaders and regimes as the "real enemies" of the Palestinians. They would rather have France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries.
  • Hani al-Masr, a prominent Palestinian political analyst, echoed this skepticism. He, in fact, believes the Arabs want to help Israel "liquidate" the Palestinian cause.
  • The Jordanians are worried that a "regional solution" would promote the idea of replacing the Hashemite kingdom with a Palestinian state. Former Jordanian Minister of Information Saleh al-Qallab denounced the talk of a "regional conference" as a "poisonous gift and conspiracy" against Jordan and the Palestinians.
  • The Lebanese have for decades dreamed of the day they could rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee camps and their inhabitants, who have long been subjected to apartheid and discriminatory laws.
  • Israel as a Jewish state is anathema to Palestinian aspirations. Any Arab or Palestinian leader who promotes such compromise is taking his life in his hands. And Palestinian history will record him as a "traitor" who sold out to the Jews and surrendered to American and Israeli pressure.
  • Abbas and his Ramallah cohorts are already up at night worrying about the talking between Israel and some Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Such "normalization", in the view of the PA, is to be reserved for after Israel submits to its demands.
  • Any "regional solution" involving Arab countries would be doomed to fail because the Palestinians and their Arab brethren hate each other. Any solution offered by the Arab governments will always be regarded as an "American-Zionist dictate."
  • Here is what Palestinians really want: to use the Europeans to impose a "solution" on Israel.
Palestinian leaders would rather have France, Sweden, Norway and Belgium oversee a peace process with Israel than any of the Arab countries. Palestinians simply do not trust their Arab brothers. Pictured: French President François Hollande (L) hugs Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a press conference in Ramallah, on November 18, 2013. (Image source: Oren Ziv/Getty Images)
Here is a fundamental misapprehension: Arab countries can help achieve peace in the Middle East by persuading, or rather pressuring, the Palestinians to make concessions to Israel.
This misapprehension is both misleading and baseless.
Recently, officials in Israel and Washington started talking about a "regional approach" to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this view, as many Arab countries as possible would be directly involved in the effort to achieve a lasting and comprehensive peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Advocates of the "regional approach" believe that Arab countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have enough leverage with the Palestinians to compel them accept a peace agreement with Israel.

Why the EU can't make sense of the world and why its downfall is imminent

by Timon Dias  •  February 26, 2017
At its core, what is the EU? And why, despite its vast resources, does it seem perpetually unable to make sense of the world and meet its objectives? The two answers lie hidden in the EU's very DNA.
First, there's the EU's primary internal contradiction: EU federalism is an ideology that propagates post-ideologism; a culturally amorphous post-ideological world.
A cosmopolitan easy going agnostic world, in which the single market and currency have made nationalism obsolete. Indeed, a world where the European Parliament invites a long haired bearded shemale to perform in front of its building and announces him/her as "The voice of Europe" singing for equality, without anyone batting an eye.
The EU's core problem, however, is that in its way of viewing and engaging the world beyond Brussels' boundaries, it is acting as if the world has already arrived at this so badly coveted post-cultural/ideological end station.

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
14 East 60 St., Suite 1001, New York, NY 10022