Why Lebanon's Sunnis Support ISIS - Hilal Khashan

by Hilal Khashan

Forcing Tripoli's Sunnis to denounce ISIS amounts to coercing them to exercise political self-suppression." The truth of the matter is that "hatred for Iran and Hezbollah has made every Lebanese Sunni heartily supportive of ISIS, even if its brutal methods will eventually affect them adversely."

 

A pro-ISIS rally last year in Tripoli, Lebanon's second largest city. Some Salafi sheikhs have pledged allegiance to ISIS, including Abu Sayyaf al-Ansari and Ahmad Asir.

The claim by a recent public opinion poll that only 1 percent of adult Lebanese Sunnis are supportive of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)[1] must be taken with a large pinch of salt since "there is a vast gulf between how people say they behave and how they actually behave."[2] In fact, since Lebanese Sunnis are willing to support whoever can defeat their enemies and restore their pride, many of them find ISIS appealing for quite a few reasons: They have an aversion to Shiites and feel estranged from the Lebanese state while harboring nostalgia for the caliphate. Many admire power in any form, and others have a predisposition to anomic terrorism.

Aversion to Shiites

The rise to preeminence of Lebanese Shiites began after the Amal movement evicted the Lebanese army from the southern suburbs of Beirut in February 1984. A year later, Hezbollah made its debut and formed a militia to fight the Israel Defense Forces and its Southern Lebanese Army surrogate.

After a long period of Shiite ascendance, the prominence of Rafiq Hariri (left) revived Sunni political hopes in Lebanon, but his assassination in February 2005 crushed expectations. In May 2008, Hezbollah stormed mostly Sunni west Beirut and liquidated the militia of the Future Movement, headed by Hariri's son Saad (right).

The Sunnis thus lost political prerogatives that had accrued to them from the 1943 National Covenant with the Maronites. Having already lost the support of the Palestine Liberation Organization due to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Sunnis suddenly found themselves giving way to a new Shiite contender that enjoyed strong regional support.
The appearance of Rafiq Hariri on the political scene in 1992 revived Sunni hopes, but his assassination in February 2005 put a damper on their expectations. In May 2008, Hezbollah stormed mostly Sunni west Beirut and, in a matter of hours, liquidated the militia of the Future Trend movement, headed by Hariri's son Saad. So after a long period of Shiite ascendance, the Sunni street rejoiced when an ISIS offensive rapidly seized Mosul and a large swath of Iraqi territory in June 2014. As a neighborhood leader in Tripoli put it: "Iraq witnessed a Sunni triumph against Shiite oppression. Forcing Tripoli's Sunnis to denounce ISIS amounts to coercing them to exercise political self-suppression."[3] The truth of the matter is that "hatred for Iran and Hezbollah has made every Lebanese Sunni heartily supportive of ISIS, even if its brutal methods will eventually affect them adversely."[4]

Estrangement from the Lebanese State

When Hezbollah shattered the main Sunni leadership, the Lebanese army watched but decided not to interfere. Weak Sunni leadership, both clerical and political, created a vacuum and caused the sect to drift apart and turn to radical Islamic leaders. One such leader was Salafi sheikh Ahmad al-Asir, whose movement had enjoyed the support and loyalty of hundreds of Sidon's families. They were routed from the city by the Lebanese army and Hezbollah in June 2013. Going underground after the debacle, Asir transferred allegiance from an-Nusra's Abu Muhammad Julani to ISIS's Abu Bakr Baghdadi.[5] This defection also underscored the eclipse of the Sunni clerical institution Dar al-Fatwa, which in recent years had been the subject of financial scandals and political weakness. The decimation of the office of the Sunni prime minister, to whom Dar al-Fatwa reports, rendered it rudderless, and it lost its traditional role maintaining the cohesion of the Sunni community.

Some government officials privately admit that ISIS has established itself in Lebanese Sunni areas, including Beirut.

In addition, some government officials privately admit that ISIS has established itself in Lebanese Sunni areas, including Beirut,[6] and there are examples to support this belief. Government-salaried Sunni clerics in Sidon, the hometown of former prime minister Saad Hariri, were impelled to react angrily to the spate of pro-ISIS wall graffiti in that city and warned that unless the trend was arrested, "Sidon would become a fertile land for breeding terrorism."[7] The Lebanese army frequently implements large-scale security measures in Sidon, despite insisting that "there is no fostering environment for ISIS in the city."[8]

In Tripoli, Lebanon's second largest city and its most important Sunni hub, Future Trend parliamentary deputies continue to refuse to admit publicly that ISIS is present in the city, but their denials have failed to hide "the existence of a radical Islamic environment in the city."[9] Several attacks on Lebanese army patrols and pro-Hariri activists in Tripoli succeeded in preventing formation of Iraqi-type awakening councils.[10] But the city is fully controlled by the army, internal security forces, and military intelligence. ISIS supporters are mainly located in its at-Tibbane neighborhood and are well known to the authorities, which choose to ignore them.[11] Pro-ISIS rallies outside mosques are commonplace in Tripoli after Friday prayers.[12] The twin explosions in January 2015 that rocked Tripoli's Alawite Jabal Muhsin sector were ordered by ISIS operatives in Rumye prison in the hills overlooking Beirut. It was only then that the embarrassed Interior Ministry decided to dismantle ISIS's operations room in the prison's Block-B.[13] Even a cursory look at the situation leads to the conclusion that "ISIS does not need to come to Tripoli. It is already there."[14] Dealing with the threat posed by ISIS is probably why the Interior and Justice portfolios in Tammam Salam's cabinet were given to Future Trend figures.

Rising Sunni anger and ISIS's successes do not bode well for Lebanese political stability.

But despite its anti-Sunni orientation, the army is careful not to get embroiled in confessional politics. Mindful that it disintegrated twice (in 1976 and in 1984) when it unabashedly took sides, the army command is obviously not interested in a third upheaval and seems to be keenly aware that Sunni approval of ISIS is a function of public distrust of the state machinery, including the military. Even though several Sunni soldiers have defected to an-Nusra and ISIS, the army command dismissed these as isolated cases.[15]

Local observers note that the "seed of ISIS terror is found in every depressed area of Lebanon."[16] Support for ISIS grows as Sunnis lament the sad state of their coreligionists in Iraq and Syria, comparing it to their own situation as Iranian-backed Hezbollah continues to exercise hegemony over Lebanese politics. Rising Sunni anger and ISIS's successes do not bode well for Lebanese political stability.[17]

Pining for the Caliphate

Unlike Shiites, who believe that the caliphate usurped the rights to the succession of Muhammad's household, Sunnis have viewed the caliph as their legitimate leader for thirteen centuries. Yearning for a resurrection, the caliphate continued to live on after its 1924 abrogation by Turkey's Kemal Atatürk as Sunnis "view it as the state of Muslim glory and justice."[18] Its reestablishment, for example, was the raison d'être of Hassan Banna's Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. Lebanese Sunnis also find the neo-Ottoman policies of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party appealing and are particularly fond of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.[19]

Obsession with the caliphate has not spared Sunnis from delusional thinking. Arab fondness for Hitler is well documented, at times to the point of asserting that the tyrant viewed Islam and its culture with favor.[20] As Daniel Pipes points out: "Nazis portrayed Islam as an ally and, accordingly, called for its revival while urging Muslims to act piously and emulate Muhammad."[21] It is also not rare for some Arabs to argue that Napoleon converted to Islam and sought to create a great Muslim empire.[22] In June 2014, ISIS's Baghdadi announced the formation of the Islamic State and designated himself caliph. Given his extreme bloodletting, even against fellow jihadists, the announcement did not generate wide approval. However, the sight of cruising motorists in Sunni areas blowing their horns—the Lebanese tradition of expressing happiness—after Baghdadi's announcement sent a muted message of approval. The issuance of the Islamic State's passport was another cause for pride. It is difficult for Sunnis to disavow the inscription on IS's passport that reads, "We will deploy armies for the holder of this passport, if harmed."[23]

Admiration for ISIS Power

Shakir Wahiyib is one of the chief executioners for ISIS and one of the few willing to bare his face during executions. ISIS resorts to such ruthless tactics without regard to human cost. The group's rationale considers the use of power, as gross and as graphic as possible, as requisite to the subjugation of enemies. A flag vendor in Tripoli explained the popularity of ISIS: "People ... like whoever is strong."

Islam literally means submission to legitimate religious authority: "Believers, obey God, His Messenger, and those charged with authority among you."[24] This imperative may well dispose believers to revere power and display intolerance for dissenting voices. Using Bin Laden's famous strong-horse metaphor, Lee Smith argues that the "Sunnis have been a bloc of force that has never known accommodation or compromise, but has rather compelled everyone else to submit to its worldview."[25] Because of the central role of the caliph in enforcing the Shari'a and spreading the faith to all corners of the globe, the "Sunni figure has often been the able statesman, the hero of conquests, or the victory-maker."[26] In a study on Lebanese college students' reaction to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, 82 percent of Sunni respondents chose Saddam Hussein as their preferred political leader. When U.S. president George Bush initiated Operation Desert Shield to prepare for the liberation of Kuwait, Hussein ordered the apprehension of several hundred Western nationals to deter U.S.-led military action. In response to a question on this, 98 percent of Lebanese Sunnis "thought the Iraqis were justified in taking Western hostages."[27] Even Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez's "anti-Israeli pronouncements enamored him to an Arab public hungry for a charismatic leader in the mold of Nasser."[28]

ISIS is no exception to the customary approach of Muslim power projected through strong leadership. If anything, it has exaggerated the use of coercion and carried it to new heights. ISIS adopted Abi Bakr Naji's gruesome publication titled The Management of Savagery[29] as a means to apply Sayyid Qutb's treatise Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones).[30] The rationale is that only extreme terror can help construct the Islamic state on the ashes of degenerate apostate regimes. The use of awesome power, as gross and as graphic as possible, is requisite to the subjugation of enemies. As the jihadist sheikh Hussein bin Mahmud once said, "Let them [our enemies] find ruthlessness in you."[31]

ISIS has had success in recruiting from a pool of alienated and radicalized Muslims as well as impoverished individuals. The Lebanese executioner Abu Asma al-Australi (above) abandoned his wrestling career to join the ISIS jihad. ISIS also succeeded in recruiting at least two Lebanese Christians from Tripoli to its ranks.

In its war in Syria and Iraq, ISIS resorts to ruthless tactics without regard to human cost. To win the battle for Tabaqa airbase in northeastern Syria, eventually overrun in August 2014, ISIS did not mind losing twice as many militants as government troops.[32] What matters more for ISIS was to strip Iraqi and Syrian soldiers to their underwear and march them to their humiliating death in order to project invincible power. Kobani is another example of ISIS's efforts to achieve spectacular triumphs regardless of the cost. ISIS lost more than one thousand fighters before admitting that it had been driven out of the town by coalition airstrikes, even as it promised it would return to attack.[33] It avenged its defeat by burning a captured Jordanian pilot to death and parading Kurdish Peshmerga prisoners of war in metal cages.[34]

Like most Muslims, Lebanese Sunnis see themselves as the victims of centuries of backwardness, marginalization, and defeat. They tend to favor any signs, however elusive, that signal reversing Sunni weakness. A flag vendor in Tripoli explained the popularity of ISIS: "[P]eople ... like whoever is strong."[35] Poor, angry and marginalized teenagers in Tripoli want "great victories."[36] Even though public display of support for ISIS in Lebanon is punishable by law, "any young man in Tripoli, if asked, would confess how much he admired its power."[37] When confronted with the brutality and viciousness of ISIS, its supporters often lean on the Qur'an to justify their position: "Muhammad ... and those with him are firm of heart against the non-believers, compassionate among themselves."[38]

A Destination for the Alienated

There are reasons other than piety for Lebanese to join ISIS and other radical religious movements. Hezbollah fighters searching the bodies of Sunni militants in Syria often report finding spoons and personal memos about their scheduled lunches in heaven with the Prophet, as well as their first rendezvous with the promised seventy-two virgins.[39] But maladapted immigrants in the West also turn to militancy, and troubled individuals desperate for emotional freedom seek shelter in the crowd to avoid responsibility while indulging in abominable actions. Even scores of Muslim women in the West chose to join ISIS after Baghdadi declared the formation of the Islamic State. "Socially isolated and depressed ... [m]any of them suffer from a lack of purpose in their daily lives."[40]
Just as alienation can affect individuals from different walks of life, joining ISIS has appealed to recruits from a broad socioeconomic spectrum. Thus, Muhammad Emwazi, the British-educated butcher of ISIS, came from a well-to-do family in London[41] as did Egyptian soccer referee Mahmud Ghandur, who chose to abandon his promising career to join ISIS.[42] The Lebanese executioner called Abu Musab al-Australi abandoned his wrestling career and the comfort of Australia to answer the call of jihad and to mentor his 7-year-old child in the art of beheading.[43] The pool of alienated and radicalized youth did not just include maladjusted Muslim immigrants in the West or rising stars feeling empty inside and searching for meaning, but also poor persons saddled with the problems of poverty and crime. ISIS also succeeded in recruiting at least two Lebanese Christians from Tripoli to its ranks. The clichéd rationalization for their metamorphosis stresses ISIS's taking advantage of the city's "poor financial conditions to recruit them."[44]

More Trouble in the Making

What is happening in Syria and Iraq is a religious war with ethnic overtones. As a microcosm of the region's religious and ethnic conflicts, it is difficult to imagine how Lebanon can be spared. The return of Saad Hariri to Lebanon to initiate dialog with Hezbollah, after years of self-exile, is linked to soaring Sunni extremism and Saudi determination to reverse it.[45] The eventual curtailment of ISIS's presence in Syria and Iraq will take time, and it is unlikely that the group will be completely eliminated. But Lebanon already presents some of its hardened members with a convenient sanctuary since "it is an established fact that Arsal and Ain al-Hilwa Palestinian refugee camp near Sidon are sanctuaries for ISIS and other radical Islamic movements."[46]

Syria and Iraq are experiencing a religious war with ethnic overtones; it is difficult to imagine how Lebanon can be spared.

Furthermore, while there are no accurate figures about the number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, this group is thought to exceed one million persons. Among them, thousands of Islamist militants masquerade as refugees. Lebanon's tenuous security situation largely depends on the whim of regional countries patronizing its antagonistic sects. In view of the spread of sectarian conflict in the region—and in the event it becomes permeable to its external environment—these refugees might well become Lebanon's Trojan horse.

Arabs missed their chance for religious reform in the nineteenth century, but the developments of the past few years suggest they are confronting the old problem. Lebanon is not exempt. When pressed to issue an anti-ISIS statement, Muhammad al-Juzu, a prominent Sunni Lebanese cleric, said only that "Hezbollah was a more difficult problem than ISIS."[47]

In view of the increasing sectarian tone of Hezbollah's military intervention, not only in Syria but also Iraq and Yemen, one can expect Lebanese Sunnis to support its ISIS nemesis, however ephemerally. And while it is difficult to know the extent of this support, it is plausible to believe that it exceeds single digit levels.

Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

---

[1] David Pollock, "Isis Has Almost No Popular Support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon," Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 2014.
[2] Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance (New York: Harper Perennial, 2011), p. 7.
[3] An-Nahar (Beirut), June 27, 2014.
[4] Liban Space (Beirut), Oct. 14, 2014.
[5] El-Badil (Cairo), Feb. 1, 2015.
[6] El-Marada (Beirut), July 3, 2014.
[7] National News Agency (Beirut), Oct. 7, 2014.
[8] Al-Balad (Beirut), Oct. 8, 2014.
[9] Elnashra (Beirut), June 28, 2014.
[10] Al-Akhbar (Beirut), Sept. 25, 2014.
[11] As-Safir (Beirut), Dec. 3, 2013.
[12] Al-Hiwar TV (London), Sept. 19, 2014.
[13] Alankabout (Leb.), Jan.13, 2015.
[14] An-Nahar, June 27, 2014.
[15] The Daily Star (Beirut), Oct. 11, 2014.
[16] Al-Afkar (Beirut), June 20, 2014.
[17] The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21, 2014.
[18] Al-Anba (Kuwait), Aug. 2, 2014.
[19] Ad-Diyar (Beirut), Oct. 14, 2014.
[20] Nahr al-Barid and al-Baddawi refugee camps' website, accessed Feb. 27, 2015.
[21] Daniel Pipes, review of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf, Commentary, Apr. 2010.
[22] Al-Ahram (Cairo), May 29, 2006.
[23] Al-Arabiya (Dubai), July 5, 2014.
[24] Qur. 4:59.
[25] Lee Smith, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations (New York: Doubleday, 2010), pp. 5-6.
[26] Hossam Tammam, "On Difference and Understanding: Al-Husayn, the Shiite Martyr, the Sunni Hero," Islamism Scope website, Mar. 11, 2004.
[27] Hilal Khashan, "The Revival of Pan-Arabism," Orbis, Winter 1991, p. 110-2.
[28] Ali Younes, "From Hero to Villain: The Arab World's Infatuation with Hugo Chavez Arc," Foreign Policy in Focus (Washington, D.C.), Mar. 15, 2013.
[29] Abu Bakr Naji, The Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage through which the Umma Will Pass, trans. William McCants (Cambridge: John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University, 2006).
[30] Sayyid Qutb, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Cairo: n.p., 1964).
[31] "Senior al-Qaeda Sheikh," Special Dispatch, no. 1635, The Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington, D.C., June 27, 2007.
[32] The Independent (London), Sept. 9, 2014.
[33] Ibid., Jan. 31, 2015.
[34] The Daily Mail (London), Feb. 23, 2015.
[35] The Daily Star, July 18, 2014.
[36] The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21, 2014.
[37] Al-Arabiya, Sept. 9, 2014.
[38] Qur. 48: 29.
[39] South Lebanon organization website, Jan. 26, 2014.
[40] Siamak Nooraei, "Jihadi Motives: Why Do Western Women Join the Islamic State?" Foreign Policy Journal, Jan. 16, 2015.
[41] Al-Arabiya.net (Dubai), Feb. 27, 2015.
[42] Lebanon 24 News (Beirut), Feb. 27, 2015.
[43] An-Nahar, Feb. 19, 2015.
[44] Naharnet (Beirut), Feb. 26, 2015.
[45] Raphael Lefevre, "Tackling Sunni Radicalization in Lebanon," Carnegie Middle East Center, Beirut, Dec. 24, 2014.
[46] Al-Binaa (Beirut), Jan. 17, 2015.
[47] An-Nahar, June 18, 2014.


Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/5316/lebanon-sunnis-isis

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Europe's Great Migration Crisis - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

Read in Swedish

• More than 715,000 people have applied for asylum in the EU during the past twelve months.
• In 2014, Hungary received more refugees per capita than any other EU country apart from Sweden. Asylum requests for Austria rose nearly 180% in the first five months of 2015, to 20,620, and were on track to reach 70,000 by the end of the year. It recently emerged that three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later.
• "The face of European civilization... will never again be what it is now. There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to the world of national cultures." — Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary.
• The European Commission announced a controversial "relocation plan" that would require EU member states to accept 40,000 over the next two years. This is in addition to a separate "resettlement plan" to distribute 20,000 refugees currently living in camps in the Middle East.
• "The proposal on the table from the European Commission is absurd, bordering on insanity. It is an incentive for human traffickers and will simply tell people: yes, try to cross the Mediterranean at all costs." — Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary.

Europe's migration crisis is exposing the deep divisions that exist within the European Union, which European federalists have long hailed as a model for post-nationalism and global citizenship. Faced with an avalanche of migrants, a growing number of EU member states have moved decisively to put their own national interests above notions of EU solidarity.

Hungary's parliament, for instance, has approved the construction of a massive border fence with Serbia as part of a new anti-immigration law that also tightens asylum rules.

The move is aimed at stopping tens of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East from entering Hungary, which has become a key gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union.

Hungarian officials say drastic measures are necessary because of the EU's inaction in the face of an unprecedented migration crisis, which has seen more than 150,000 migrants cross into Europe during the first six months of 2015. More than 715,000 people have applied for asylum in the EU during the past twelve months.

Hungarian lawmakers on July 6 voted 151 to 41 in favor of building a 4-meter-high (13-foot) fence along the 175-kilometer (110-mile) border with Serbia. The measure aims to cut off the so-called Western Balkan Route, which constitutes the main land route through Eastern Europe for migrants who enter the EU from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria.

More than 60,000 people have entered Hungary illegally during the first six months of 2015, a nearly 900% increase over the same period in 2014, according to Frontex, the European border agency. Approximately 95% of the migrants entering Hungary — most coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Kosovo — cross into the country from Serbia, which unlike Hungary is not a member of the EU.

Hungary forms part of the EU's passport-free Schengen zone, which means that once migrants are inside the country, they can travel freely throughout most of the rest of the EU without further border checks.

In 2014, Hungary received more refugees per capita than any other EU country apart from Sweden. Although most of the migrants entering Hungary continue onward to wealthier countries in Western Europe, a growing number of refugees are deciding to stay in Hungary. During the first three months of 2015, Hungary received the largest number of asylum requests as a share of population of any EU member state.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has justified the moves as necessary to defend his country. "The Hungarian government is committed to defending Hungary and defending the Hungarian people from the immigration pressure," he said. "Hungary cannot allow itself to wait any longer. Naturally, we hope there will be a joint European solution."

Critics say the decision to build a fence evokes memories of the Cold War, when Europe was divided between East and West. "We have only recently taken down walls in Europe," said the EU's spokesperson for migration, Natasha Bertaud. "We should not be putting them up."

An unnamed European diplomat told the Telegraph newspaper: "This is a scandal. Hungary, which was the first Communist country to dismantle the Iron Curtain, is now building a new curtain on its southern border."

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has pointed to the big picture consequences of untrammeled immigration from Muslim countries. Speaking at a conference in honor of former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who recently turned 85, Orban warned that the influx of so many migrants was threatening "the face of European civilization" which "will never again be what it is now." He added: "There is no way back from a multicultural Europe. Neither to a Christian Europe, nor to the world of national cultures."

Hungary is not the only EU country that has been building or fortifying walls and fences to keep migrants out.

Bulgaria has built a 33-km (21-mile), three-meter-high (10-foot) barbed wire fence along its border with its southeastern neighbor Turkey in an effort to limit the influx of migrants from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The Interior Ministry has also deployed more than one thousand police officers to patrol the Turkish border.

Greece has erected a 10.5-km, four-meter-high barbed-wire fence along part of its border with Turkey. The Greek wall is said to be responsible for diverting migration routes toward neighboring Bulgaria and, consequently, for construction of the wall there.

Spain has fortified fences in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla as record numbers of migrants are jumping over the barriers from neighboring Morocco. Border police registered more than 19,000 attempts to jump the fence at Melilla in 2014, up 350% on 2013, according to the Interior Ministry. Nearly 7,500 migrants successfully entered Ceuta and Melilla in 2014, including 3,305 from Syria.

The UK is setting up more than two miles of nine-foot-high security fencing at the Channel Tunnel port of Calais in northern France, in an attempt to stop thousands of illegal migrants breaking into trucks bound for the UK. Currently, more than 3,000 migrants are camped in and around Calais hoping to make it to Britain. More than 39,000 would-be illegal immigrants were prevented from crossing the Channel in the 12 months prior to April, more than double the previous year.

EU member states are implementing other emergency measures to halt the flow of immigration.

Austria has stopped processing asylum claims as of June 13, in an effort to make the country "less attractive" for migrants relative to other EU countries. According to Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner, Vienna was "stopping the Austrian asylum express," whereby applications are processed within an average period of four months, faster than in any other EU country. Asylum requests for Austria rose nearly 180% in the first five months of 2015 to 20,620, and were on track to reach 70,000 by the end of the year.

Denmark on July 1 announced that it would slash benefits for asylum seekers to bring down the number of refugees coming to the country. It recently emerged that three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later.

France and Italy have sparred over who is responsible for hundreds of African migrants stranded at Ventimiglia on the France-Italy border after French police refused to let them in. France accused Italy of failing to respect the so-called Dublin Regulation, a law that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first European country they reach. Italian officials argued that the migrants see Italy as only a transit country.

Hungary on June 23 suspended its adherence to the Dublin Regulation, which requires Hungary to take back refugees who have travelled through the country to reach other EU countries.

Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU's powerful bureaucratic arm, on May 27 announced a controversial "relocation plan" that would require EU member states to accept 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean asylum seekers from Italy and Greece over the next two years.

This is in addition to a separate "resettlement plan" to distribute 20,000 refugees, mostly from Iraq and Syria, who are currently living in camps in the Middle East.

The proposal to "share" migrants among EU member states is aimed at easing the growing burden on Italy and Greece, two countries that — in addition to Hungary and Spain — have emerged as the main gateways for migration into Europe.

In April of this year, 140 illegal migrants landed on the Greek island of Gavdos (population 152).

Many say that decisions about the granting of residence permits should be kept at the national level, and that by unilaterally imposing migrant quotas on EU member states, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are seeking to force the democratically elected leaders of Europe to submit to their diktat.

European leaders meeting in Luxembourg on July 9 were unable to reach a consensus on the quota proposal. They will try again on July 20.

Austria, Germany and Sweden, which together take in the largest share of the refugees along with Italy and Greece, are in favor of the quota plans. Belgium, France, Spain and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics are opposed. The UK, Denmark and Ireland are exempted from the plan.

Hungary's Prime Minister Orban summed it up this way: "The proposal on the table from the European Commission is absurd, bordering on insanity. Quotas are only going to bring more people to Europe. It is an incentive for human traffickers and will simply tell people: yes, try to cross the Mediterranean at all costs."
 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6146/europe-migration

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Islamist State of Iran Scoring Victories - Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The Islamic Republic fuels extremism in the region, gives birth to militias and is the major root of atrocities, terrorism, human rights abuses and the vicious cycle we are witnessing in the Middle East and beyond. In fact, there is a powerful correlation between the Islamic Republic’s rising military buildup and the rising power of extremism and terrorism in the region.

The mainstream media have ignored and overlooked the Islamic Republic’s recent moves, which threatened regional security. The Islamic Republic’s search for regional hegemony has also been overshadowed by President Obama’s prioritization of signing a nuclear deal.

Iranian leaders and media outlets have given an estimate of how much they have so far gained from the nuclear talks. The Iranian leaders and state-owned media have recently boasted about receiving approximately $12 billion in assets over the period of the nuclear talks by July 7th. 

The ruling clerics in the Islamic Republic and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps have also unveiled and are celebrating the deployment of a new and second long-range Ghadir radar. According to an Iranian state-owned outlet, Brigadier General Farzad Esmaili, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) air defense force, who unveiled the Ghadir phased-array radar, pointed out that “Discovering and tracking micro aerial vehicles (MAV)… is one of the special qualities of the Ghadir radar system.”

This is part of long-range and air defense system. The Islamic Republic is attempting to completely shield its nuclear facilities when it is close to obtaining nuclear weapons. Russia has also made a deal with the Islamic Republic to ship the S-300 advanced missile system to Iran.

The Islamic Republic also continues to receive billions of dollars due to the nuclear talks. One recent example includes a side deal that the Islamic Republic worked out at the nuclear talks with the Obama administration, which would give Tehran 13 tons of gold worth about $700 million.

The winners of these nuclear talks are primarily President Obama, the Iranian government, Shiite proxies in the region, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, President Rouhani, the Syrian government and Bashar Al Assad, and Western corporations and companies.

President Obama desires to seal and achieve his final legacy. President Obama and his administration are creating the narrative that the deal is a historic and good one.

On the other hand, the easing of sanctions creates a whole array of other winners in the Islamic Republic including the IRGC, office of the Supreme Leader, and the Quds force (elite branch of IRGC which operates in extraterritorial landscapes). 

As the economic power of the IRGC and the Quds force increases, Iran’s Shiite proxies in the region will benefit from the trickling down of these funds. Al Assad can also be more assured and confident that the Islamic Republic will continue supporting his government financially, economically, militarily, and through intelligence and advisory roles.

Entities or governments which will not benefit from these nuclear talks or latest developments are countries which are threatened by extremist militia groups in the region and are concerned with Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, it’s search for regional preeminence and supremacy, Iran’s attempts to tip the balance of power in its favor.

The Islamic Republic fuels extremism in the region, gives birth to militias and is the major root of atrocities, terrorism, human rights abuses and the vicious cycle we are witnessing in the Middle East and beyond. In fact, there is a powerful correlation between the Islamic Republic’s rising military buildup and the rising power of extremism and terrorism in the region.

As Israeli Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, the Islamic State (IS) threat is nothing in comparison to the Islamic Republic’s threat.

The Iranian government is also scoring further victories with regard to the nuclear talks. When we comprehensively and meticulously look at the deal, the agreement will not only maintain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it will create whole new security and geopolitical concerns in the region. The agreement is not final but temporary, broadly speaking. After 10 years, economic sanctions will have lifted, Iran’s breakout capacity will be nearly complete, and Iran can reinitiate its program with full speed. 

As a result, Iranian leaders will have it both ways. 

President Obama is treating the Islamic Republic completely differently from groups such as the Islamic State. He calls Iran a successful regional player.

Obama fails to recognize the fact that any victory or military capability that the Islamic Republic gains is a step towards more militarization, terrorism, violence and regional insecurity. As Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “Obviously no one thinking with a clear mind would consider giving Islamic State nuclear weapons,” and he adds, “But in the negotiations taking place now with Iran, this extreme state that spreads terrorism around the world is being given the ability to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal with many nuclear bombs, together with the means to deliver them... We should not strengthen one at the expense of the other…We need to weaken both and prevent the aggression and military buildup of both of them.”

It is the time to pay closer attention to the Islamic Republic’s covert military buildup and treat it the same way the international community treats the Islamic State, not as a successful regional player.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259441/islamist-state-iran-scoring-victories-dr-majid-rafizadeh

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Endgame - Eileen F. Toplansky

by Eileen F. Toplansky

• This rule, known as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH), has been shrouded in secrecy.
• Every day, we hear the Obama tirade about people not being responsible for their actions; after all, "you didn't build that," or, in the reverse, you are not responsible for the destruction of your own neighborhoods.  Each utterance describes a moral compass that either diminishes hard work or elevates destruction.

In the winter of 1993, Colin Ferguson exercised his racial animosity against whites by shooting passengers on a commuter train from Manhattan.  Upon investigation, it was found that he had a vendetta against whites.

After the Rodney King case, white truck driver Reginald Denny was savagely beaten by angry blacks.  During the ensuing riots, black and Hispanic looters were given a pass under the rubric of "justified social rage."

The aforementioned material comes from Dinesh D'Souza's 1995 book entitled The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society.  Now, twenty years later, we see how this "violent expression" is expanding, all the while being promoted by the first black president of the United States.

Currently, we see out-of-control black teenagers attacking people at malls and swimming pools, yet the coverage in the media is, for the most part, nonexistent.  Colin Flaherty leads the charge in exposing the brutality and racist motivation, but he is a lone voice in the wilderness. 

At another level, we have a Democrat-controlled city of Baltimore with a black female mayor espousing the need for "space to destroy."  Repeatedly, we see the same vicious cycle of black rage, which only destroys their own urban communities, makes white people cringe in fear, and ultimately hurts decent law-abiding black people caught in the crossfire.  Nonetheless, Obama encourages the lawlessness.

Consequently, the words of Derrick Bell, uttered in 1994, now reflect a mainstream approach as Obama continues his ultimate transformation of America.

The new crop of leaders are going to be a lot more dangerous and radical, and the next phase will probably be led by charismatic individuals, maybe even teenagers, who urge that instead of killing each other, they should go out in gangs and kill a whole lot of white people.

Derrick Bell and Jewelle Taylor Gibbs have maintained that African-American rage will eventually find "violent expression in the suburbs." 

And, lo and behold, it will be coming very soon to your neighborhood, in the form of a fair housing rule promulgated by Obama.  This rule, known as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH), has been shrouded in secrecy.

Obama, the ultimate leftist, continues with his false utopian dreams.  Repeatedly, Obama openly supports the notion that wealthy people have no right to their wealth.  And, furthermore, it is the principled right of poor people – or the government serving their so-called interests – to rob the affluent of their hard-earned wealth.  In traditional Obama fashion, the AFFH will actually promote racial division, racial rage, and social engineering, all the while maintaining an intention to undo racism. 

What a clever way to insinuate certain people into a community who do not appreciate the culture of hard work yet thrive by maintaining a culture of entitlement mixed in with a rage that knows no bounds.

In essence, the AFFH "gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood – imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education."

A blueprint for this suburban integration plan was previously tried from 1994 to 2008, when HUD resettled urban poor in the suburbs via Clinton's "Moving to Opportunity Initiative."  It failed dismally as "more people went on food stamps and their children did not do better in their new schools."

Besides reducing safety as well as property values, the AFFH rule signals what I have dubbed Payback Time White America (PTWA), which Obama engages at every opportunity.  The fact that well-to-do black Americans may fall victim is just a friendly fire event for Obama.

Rest assured that it will help promote racial animus and resentment, which, in turn, will result in more "threats of anarchy and racial apocalypse."  Thus, repressed rage will find its outlet in class and racial warfare.  Exactly as Obama dreams.

Every day, we hear the Obama tirade about people not being responsible for their actions; after all, "you didn't build that," or, in the reverse, you are not responsible for the destruction of your own neighborhoods.  Each utterance describes a moral compass that either diminishes hard work or elevates destruction.  It deliberately inflames and pits one group against another.

And if racism has nothing to do with the conditions of blacks, then just concoct a scenario and scream racism – that alone will suffice.  As Rush Limbaugh has stated, it's not the nature of the evidence that matters in Obamaland; it's the seriousness of the charge.

Stanley Kurtz has pointed out that the AFFH is being kept under wraps because, as Brookings Fellow Richard Reeves has stated, "[p]erhaps it's important to keep [the AFFH rule] sounding obscure in order to get it through."  As Kurtz explains, "[i]n other words, to get the AFFH rule enacted before public opposition and congressional Republicans can block it, [the administration has] to keep its existence and importance quiet[.]"  Thus, according to Reeves, "[s]ometimes obscurity is the best political strategy, particularly in this area."

One hears echoes of how Obamacare was rammed through, under this incredibly non-transparent administration.  We have learned far too often that this president is a perfect example of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.  Every time Obama claims something, we have come to learn that it is a far cry from the truth.

According to the Office of the Secretary at HUD:

The Fair Housing Act not only prohibits discrimination but, in conjunction with other statutes, directs HUD's program participants to take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination. The approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing carried out by HUD program participants prior to this rule, which involved an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice and a certification that the program participant will affirmatively further fair housing, has not been as effective as originally envisioned.

Certainly we can envision low-income buildings in the middle of the suburbs.  Will poor black families be able to demand houses that white executives own?  Will the wealthy have to subsidize the poor in order to enable them to live in the neighborhood?  How exactly does one seed a community with people in order to make it "free from discrimination"?  What will be the racial proportions of the community under AFFH?  If economics is not the guiding principle, what is?  Will people who claim to be black – e.g., Rachel Dolezal – receive preferential treatment?  Will illegals get an opportunity to experience the American dream though their income is insufficient?  Will the government use taxpayer money and just buy up land and settle people?

In light of Obama's racial trajectory, what will eventually happen is the destruction of neighborhoods, and the ramping up of racial animosity.  Black flash mobs will get the go-ahead to destroy even when they may have obtained a better geographical space.  White and black homeowners will fear for their safety as the entitlement mentality morphs throughout their community.  After all, according to Obama, racism is in America's genes, and when a disease is discovered, the vector clearly needs to be destroyed.  Obama's ultimate dream to transform America will have occurred, and we will live in a third-world paradise, with the government distributing whatever crumbs it so deigns as long as the misery will be shared by all.

Eileen F. Toplansky can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/obamas_endgame.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

McConnell: Iran deal will be 'hard sell' in Congress - Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

by Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff

"We already know it's going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says of Iran nuclear deal • House Speaker John Boehner says he would "applaud" U.S. President Barack Obama for walking away from talks.

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses Congress [Archive] Photo credit: AFP

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other congressional leaders expressed doubts Sunday about the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, predicting that U.S. President Barack Obama could face hurdles in Congress if negotiators reach a final agreement.

McConnell spoke minutes after diplomats said on Sunday that negotiators at the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna were expected to reach a provisional agreement to curb the country's atomic program in return for tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been leading the American delegation in the talks, which aim to impose long-term, verifiable limits on Tehran's nuclear programs.

"This is going to be a very hard sell for the administration," McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday" when asked about the likelihood of Congress signing off on a deal. "We already know it's going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state."

Obama has come under criticism from members of Congress and some U.S. allies in the Middle East who say the administration has conceded too much in the Iran talks.

 

Credit: Reuters 

 

The current negotiations have run more than two weeks and blown through three deadlines. Because the talks are in overtime, Congress will have 60 days to assess the deal, requiring Obama to await that review before easing sanctions agreed to in a deal.

During those two months, lawmakers could try to build a veto-proof majority behind new legislation that could impose new sanctions on Iran or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said lawmakers would review any agreement carefully to ensure the Iranians are held accountable and that any violations can be enforced.

"At the end of the day, I think people understand that if this is a bad deal that is going to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, they would own this deal if they voted for it, and so they'll want to disapprove it," said Corker. "On the other hand, if we feel like we're better off with it, people will look to approve it."

Sen. Ben Cardin, the committee's ranking Democratic member, acknowledged the long, difficult work of negotiators and said that Congress has a rigorous task ahead, as well.

"In our deliberations we need to ensure the negotiations resulted in a comprehensive, long-lasting, and verifiable outcome that also provides for snap-back of sanctions should Iran deviate from its commitments," Cardin said in a statement on Sunday. "If an agreement is achieved, Congress faces a solemn charge in reviewing the deal which I expect will be fulfilled to the best of our abilities and at the highest of standards."

Obama played down chances for an Iran nuclear deal during a closed-door meeting with Senate Democrats last week, telling participants that an agreement was at best a 50-50 proposition.

McConnell said a resolution of disapproval is likely to be introduced in the Senate and predicted it would pass with more than 60 votes. If Obama vetoed the resolution, McConnell noted that the president would need 34 votes, or more than one-third of the Senate, to sustain it, adding that he hoped Democrats would resist a "strong pull" not to buck Obama.

Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading foreign policy voice among Senate Democrats, said the prospect of a deal made him "anxious," saying the talks had moved from preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability to managing that capability.

Western diplomats say the goal of the deal is to increase the time it would take for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium fuel for a weapon to at least one year, from current estimates of two to three months. 

Menendez, interviewed on ABC's "This Week" program, did not rule out supporting a deal.

The debate in Washington over any deal would happen with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign already under way.

One Republican candidate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that negotiations should be left to the next president, who will take office in January 2017.

"I think a good outcome is to basically leave the interim deal in place" with Iran until then, Graham said.

House Speaker John Boehner said failure of the talks would not be a bad outcome.

On CBS's "Face the Nation," Boehner said: "If, in fact, there's no agreement, the sanctions are going to go back in place," prodding Iran to "abandon their efforts to get a nuclear weapon, and stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world."

When asked what if neither of those things were to happen, Boehner said there would be "a standoff," but that such a scenario was better than "legitimizing this rogue regime" with a final nuclear accord with Tehran.

Boehner further said that he would "applaud" Obama for walking away from the Iran nuclear talks, adding that "no deal is better than a bad deal."

"From everything that's leaked from these negotiations, the administration's backed away from almost all of the guidelines that they set out for themselves," he said.

Iranian and Western officials say the earliest an agreement could be ready is likely Monday.

Yoni Hersch, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff  

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=26839  

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Banning and Burning the Burqa in Muslim Chad - Stephen Brown

by Stephen Brown

Why the Muslim-majority country is outlawing the Islamic attire.

 

While people who oppose the wearing of facial coverings by Muslim women are routinely accused of Islamophobia, the Muslim-majority nation of Chad has not only banned such garments but ordered one variety, the burqa, burned.

“Wearing the burqa must stop immediately from today, not only in public places and schools but throughout the whole of the country,” said Prime Minister Kalzeube Pahimi Deubet, Chad’s ruler since 1990.

The central African country of 13.5 million people took this unprecedented step after at least two burqa-wearing suicide bombers, reportedly men in disguise, staged co-ordinated terrorist attacks in N’Djamena, Chad’s capital, last June 15. The targets were the city’s police headquarters and the police academy. The resulting carnage saw 38 people killed, including four terrorists, and dozens more wounded. Though no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, Chadian authorities blame the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram, based in nearby Nigeria.

The terrorist attacks, regarded by some as the country’s 9/11, shocked the Chadian public, as they were the first ever to take place in country’s capital. One African newspaper reported bomb fragments from the attacks were sent to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Almost immediately after the twin assaults, a nationwide ban was announced against wearing clothing that covers the face. Anyone violating the ban will be “arrested, tried and sentenced in summary proceedings.” Prime Minister Deubet stated security authorities were also ordered to enter markets “to seize all burqas on sale and burn them.” He also banned facial coverings that leave only the eyes uncovered, such as the niqab, calling them “camouflage.”

Deubet announced the burqa ban to religious leaders at the start of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month. Chad, a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, is about 53 percent Muslim, the majority of whom are Sufi, and 35 percent Christian. Some Chadians still practice traditional African religions. Deubet asked the religious leaders to spread news of the ban in “mosques, churches and other holy places.”

It is believed Chad, a U.S. ally in Africa’s anti-jihad coalition, was targeted for the June attack because of its leading, and effective, role in fighting the Nigerian Islamic terrorist group, Boko Haram, which is known worldwide for its slaughter of innocent civilians and enslavement of young women. Boko Haram had controlled an area in northern Nigeria ‘about the size of Belgium” until earlier this year when Chad and Cameroon sent troops to help the Nigerian government forces. Their joint efforts won back large areas from Boko Haram.   

Boko Haram fighters met Chadian troops in battle last February in Cameroon and probably wished they hadn’t. The respected military news publication, Strategy Page, reported the Boko Haram force lost more than 200 men in the ensuing clash. In another battle, Boko Haram attacked a combined Cameroonian-Chadian force, losing more than 100 fighters for nine Cameroonian dead. But the Boko Haram murderers killed 70 civilians and burned down a mosque before retreating.

“Chad has already moved 2,500 troops into Cameroon and Niger and these soldiers have clashed with Boko Haram several times and surprised the Islamic terrorists by quickly winning these clashes,” Strategy Page states.

As a result of its defeats and territorial losses, it is therefore not surprising that Boko Haram’s leader, Abubakar Shekau, threatened Chad and other countries helping Nigeria. And N’Djamena would make a prime target to carry out such threats. Besides being Chad’s capital, it is also the headquarters for the regional force fighting Boko Haram. Three thousand French troops engaged in the terror war are also stationed there.

The terrorist carnage in N’Djemena did not stop, however, with the double suicide attack. Two weeks later, five Chadian security officials were killed when Boko Haram operatives blew themselves up during a police raid. Chadian authorities also arrested 60 terrorist suspects after the June 15 attacks, many of them foreigners. This led to the dismantling of a terrorist cell, seizure of weapons and documents, closing of a bomb-making facility and arrest of a leading Boko Haram recruiter and weapons purchaser.

“Boko Haram is making a mistake by targeting Chad,” said Hassan Sylla Bakari, the country’s communications minister. “These lawless terrorists will be chased out and neutralised wherever they are.” 

The use of burqas and other face-covering Islamic clothing for illegal or terroristic purposes is not new. Even in pre-revolutionary Russia, Bolshevik terrorists in the Caucuses under Stalin were said to dress up in women’s Islamic clothing to avoid detection when operating an “invaluable” underground press.

“The typesetters, and probably Stalin too, arrived and left dressed as Muslim women in veils,” wrote Stalin biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore.

There have been bans on burqa- and niqab-wearing in Islamic countries in the past, but they were usually temporary and local. Egyptian universities, for example, banned them in 2009 from women’s dormitories because men were donning them to gain access to the all-female facilities. In justifying the ban, the Egyptian minister of higher education stated seventeen men disguised in such veils had been arrested inside women’s dorms the previous year.

Although this ban was later lifted, the Egyptian government placed another one on women’s Islamic face-coverings at universities when writing exams. The reason given was that “students, both male and female, were attending exams disguised as other candidates by wearing a face veil.”     

But as the deadly threat of Islamic terrorism grows worldwide, it is inevitable more countries will have to face the question of what to do regarding the burqa and other, face-concealing Islamic garb. Chad may have done them a favour in this respect. While African countries are usually the ones being offered advice, the central African nation is instead giving other countries a lesson they can follow. The Chadian government is showing that it favours the security, safety and well-being of its citizens more than any possible hurt religious feelings. More importantly, it is showing it has the courage to do so. And as Muslim-majority nation banning face coverings, Chad can serve both as an example, and reference, for countries, especially non-Muslim ones, wishing to do the same.  

In making the ban acceptable, though, it is important to note, as one observer has pointed out, that the Chadian government emphasised its action is not anti-religious. It was taken simply for security reasons and not because the face-coverings are regarded as socially divisive, as they are in some Western countries. It is the misuse of religious clothing to destroy human life that Chad is challenging. Authorities stressed the security aspect by also adopting other measures after the June attacks, such as outlawing tinted windshields.

The same observer also states that Saudi Arabia is currently in the same position as Chad, as women’s clothing covering the body from head to toe “has been used as camouflage in several successful and attempted terrorist attacks.” But it is unlikely Saudi Arabia will ever follow Chad’s example. Unlike Chad, in Saudi Arabia the religious importance of women’s garb still trumps human life. This was proven when Saudi religious police once forced school girls back into a burning residence they had fled because they weren’t properly covered. Tragically for its citizens, Saudi Arabia will probably never learn, as Chad has, that it is better to let the face-coverings burn rather than the women who wear them.

Stephen Brown

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259442/banning-and-burning-burqa-muslim-chad-stephen-brown

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.