Burkini Ban, Burkina Faso & Israel

Mao Zedong decreed that everybody should dress the same in China. 

I don’t like burqas; just as I did not like the choke-collar suits of Maoist China, the black garb of Charedi Jews or the tophats City bankers wore until not that long ago.

I don’t like them, mostly because I feel that people should not be regimented.  Wearing a uniform is loss of freedom, just like being in the army or in prison.  Plus, people wearing that kind of garb seem to be yearning to go backwards – to 7^thcentury Arabia or to 17^th century Poland – rather than forwards.

In recent weeks, several municipalities in France have decreed a ‘burkini ban’ – meaning that women using public beaches are fined if they wear that ‘Islamised’ type of costume.  Even more recently, a French ‘administrative court’ – whatever that is – has banned the ban.  Yet, apparently, the story is not over yet: some of the mayors involved (and quite a few national politicians who jumped on the bandwagon) have vowed to overturn the suspension that suspended the ban that banned the burkini… you know how it goes!

Even some burqa-inspired garb looks
trendy when Italians design it! 

Well, I may not like burqas (or indeed burkinis); but the idea of a ban is wrong, stupid and – perhaps worst of all – a populist distraction from the real issues.

It’s wrong because, just as people should not be told what clothes to wear, they shouldn’t be told what not to wear.  It is even more wrong because one particular distinctive garb was singled out and banned.  Yes, I know there are ‘reasons’ – there always are; but no: there are no excuses for double standards.  Or, rather, there are only dishonest excuses.

The burkini ban is stupid, because it completely lacks purpose.  What exactly is it supposed to achieve?  Will it prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims?  How exactly?  Which of France’s recent terrorist attacks would have been prevented, had the burkini bans been in place?

Finally – and worst of all – the burkini ban is a populist distraction.  This trifle of an ‘issue’ deflects attention from the very real and grave concerns: the radicalisation of young Muslims, the religious extremism which begets intolerance and terrorism.

The ban is not just a golden opening for political demagogues – of every tinge – to burnish their credentials; it’s also a cop out for everybody: an excellent excuse to duck the real challenges, while furiously debating a marginal issue.  What a superb opportunity for doing nothing – with great determination!

Even worse – the motivations are, let’s face it, obviously racist.  Granted, there was no obligation for the French state to open its borders and its population registry to a wide variety of people – including some who have not exactly been raised up in the spirit of  ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’.  But once they did let them in, once they recognised them as French citizens, they can’t tell them what they are allowed to wear, now can they?

‘Special laws’ for one category of people?  Haven’t we seen that before, somewhere?  A bylaw is still a law.  And singling out one particular category of French citizens deserves just one name: no, it’s not ‘love of nudity’ – it’s ‘naked racism’!

Nor am I particularly surprised: in the latest elections for the European Parliament, the far-right Front National won a third of the votes.  And those European Elections took place in 2014, before the latest bout of jihadist terrorism that hit France.  (Contrary to popular belief, the fully proportional European Parliament elections are the best indicator of people’s real political opinions, which are masked by plurality election systems based on geographic constituencies.)

So much for the far-right.  There is, of course, quite a bit of far-left racism in France (and elsewhere in Europe).  In the process of crowning them as ‘oppressed’ and hence in perpetual need of their rights being ‘defended’ by Good (Marxist) Samaritans, the far-left denies Muslims their God-given agency; it infantilises them.  When it comes to Muslims, far-rightists demand a higher standard than for anyone else; far-leftists set the standards lower than for anyone else.  Both positions are racist because both deny Muslims their status as equal members of the human race – with the same rights and obligations everyone else has.

Prefers not to wear hijab (but wouldn’t be fined if she did):
Noura Abu-Shanab, an Arab Israeli and captain
of the women football team Hapoel Petah Tikva. 

Sure, France has seen quite a bit of Islamist terrorism; but Israel has seen more.  Circa 7.5% of French citizens are Muslims; the proportion is roughly 3 times larger in Israel.  And yet, in Israel not even the far-right tries to control how Muslims dress.

If you are a Muslim in Israel, you are entitled to have your personal status matters (such as marriage and divorce) adjudicated according to Shari’a – the Islamic law.  The qadis (traditional Islamic judges) receive their salaries from the state budget, as do the dayanim – their Judaic counterparts; and the Jewish State will apply the decision of the Shari’a court just as it does with that of a Beth Din – the traditional Rabbinical court.  French Muslims can only dream of that level of freedom and consideration.

An Israeli beach: the way to heaven is a matter of opinion...

And yet, it is the French government that, every year, is paying a lot of money to far-left Israeli organisations dedicated to inspecting ‘human rights’ in Israel.  That money, it turns out, would be put to much better use, were it invested in France.  There is, it seems obvious, a lot to be done to root out extremism and racism from the French society – both Muslims and non-Muslims.  Perhaps Israel – a good friend of that troubled country – should weigh in to prop up the increasingly shaky French democracy?  Lest it becomes more like – say – Burkina Faso?

Don’t slam Islam; but don’t tolerate intolerance, either!

Paris is in shock again and with it the entire civilised world.  Although, truth be told, this has not come as a surprise.  Nor have the reactions of Western politicians and journalists.  On one hand, we hear again the predictable but oh-so-idiotic claim that acts perpetrated in the name of Allah and Muhammad ‘have nothing to do with Islam’; on the other hand, we are treated to the bigoted implication that believing in Allah and Muhammad counts as ‘fifth column’ membership.  Both approaches are cowardly populist; both are terribly wrong; worse – both are pathetically unhelpful.

No, we can’t start accusing or suspecting everyone who embraces Islam as his/her religion; or even as his/her main identity.  But neither should we stick our heads in the ground, close our eyes to reality and plug our ears with politically-correct cotton wool, denying that a certain strand of Islam has everything to do with terrorism.

There will never be a shortage of imbeciles eager to find excuses and to ‘explain away’ terrorism.  Yes, the West has made war in Iraq and Afghanistan; but then, Russia is making war in Ukraine – and yet Ukrainians don't blow themselves up in Moscow’s stadiums or in Sankt Petersburg’s concert halls.  Yes, Western colonialists have left a lousy legacy in the Middle East; but they did worse, much worse elsewhere.  Indians don’t try to blow up the Wembley Stadium.  Armenians don’t murder patrons in Istanbul’s restaurants and Israeli Jews don’t fly airplanes into Frankfurt’s office buildings.

There’ll also be bigots who will point to passages from the Qur’an and claim that there’s something inherently violent in Islam.  But I can equally quote passages from the Torah and from the New Testament that would seem to incite to violence.  What about the injunction to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven”?  And didn’t Jesus say “I came not to send peace, but the sword”?  Oh, and I can find for you Qur’anic verses praising peace – just like one finds in every scripture.

No, Islam is not a religion of peace; nor is it a religion of war.  Religions aren’t ‘of’ anything; people are.  There is no denying that acts of terrorism are currently more likely to be committed in the name of Islam than in the name of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Shintoism.  If a suicide bomber detonates himself tomorrow, it is more likely that he’ll be called Muhammad, rather than Paul, Moshe or Jitendra.  That is a fact.  Most Muslims are not radicals; it's just that there are more radicals among Muslims.

But why?  Islam is not fundamentally different from Christianity or Judaism.  It is just younger, much younger.  It appeared on the grand scene of history about 14 centuries ago.  Christianity is considerably older – more than 2000 years; Judaism is ancient.  Age is of consequence: religions (like all human endeavours) have a life of their own.  Just like human beings.  Youngsters are more impetuous; more impulsive; less patient and less tolerant.  Thankfully, they mellow as they grow old.  So do religions.  Want to understand radical Islam?  Violent Jihad?  Think 14th century Christianity, with its crusades and Inquisition.

In 14th century Europe, religion pervaded every aspect of human life; so it does these days in most parts of the Middle East.  14th century Europeans may have called themselves ‘French’, ‘German’ or ‘English’; but their primary identity was ‘Christians’.  Just as these days hundreds of millions of people will tell you that they define themselves first and foremost as ‘Muslims’.

Jihadis are nothing more – and nothing less, and nothing else – than the ‘modern’, Muslim version of medieval Crusaders.  They may be armed with assault rifles and grenades, rather than swords and maces; but they are just as blood-thirsty; just as self-righteous; just as ready to achieve martyrdom and earn their ticket to heaven.  Are you still wondering why they behead people?

OK, you’ll say; that may well be so, but how does this help?  Will we have to endure centuries of Jihad?  Well, not necessarily.  Things have changed somewhat from the real 14th century.

Think about it: why did so many people (not just kings and knights, but simple peasants and tradesmen) leave behind their homesteads, their families, their lives – to make war on the infidels?  To kill, maim, pillage and rape?  No, Popes did not use Twitter to stir up trouble – not in those times.  They used preachers.  That has not changed: it is still the preachers of hate that brainwash people into becoming butchers.

Wanna deal with Jihadi terrorism?  You can try to track all the tens of thousands that have already been radicalised – and the millions that will be; or you can go after a few thousand hate preachers. Those preachers may not practice violence themselves; but they kill, maim, pillage and rape – however indirectly.  Jail them if you can; kill them if you have to; or just prevent their odious message from reaching its target.  That means tighter border controls.  It means closing websites, monitoring social media, controlling school activities, raiding mosques, banning radical madrassahs.  If that implies changing our laws, so they protect the tolerant, rather than tolerating the bigot – then so be it; if it means making law enforcement more intrusive, then that’s a price we’ll have to pay, for our safety and that of our children.  Make no mistake: it’s the price we’ll have to pay to maintain rule of law; to avoid rule of the mob.  There will have to be limits to freedom: your freedom must end where you want to take away mine.

That won’t stop tomorrow’s terrorist attack; it won’t provide an instant solution.  But, in time, it will choke the flow of hatred.

The Torah says “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, so that you and your offspring will live”.  I’m sure the Qur’an won’t disagree.

A Tale of Two Agreements: what do Greece and Iran have in common?

Two important agreements have been concluded recently, almost at the same time: one dealt with Greece and its economy; the other – with Iran and its nuclear programme.  The former was said to remove a threat to the financial health of the Eurozone; the latter is purported to remove a danger to the security of the entire world.

The Supreme Leader smiles with satisfaction...

There are both similarities and differences between the two ‘deals’.  In both cases, negotiations have been long and difficult – though in the case of Iran brinkmanship was taken to an entirely new level: overtly or covertly, various wheeling and dealing has been going on for 12 years, until just 2-3 months separated the mullahs’ regime from its first nuclear weapon.  Both with Greece and with Iran, extreme economic pressures ultimately made the agreement possible.  Both countries were about to reach the end of the rope from a financial point of view – Greece through years of mismanagement and economic profligacy, Iran through the piling up of international sanctions.

A broken Greek Prime Minister on national
television: “I fully assume responsibility
for mistakes and oversights, and for signing
a text that I do not believe in, but that I am
obliged to implement... The hard truth is
this one-way street for Greece was imposed
on us...”

But a humbled Greek government was ultimately brought to its knees and – in return for a measure of financial relief – was forced to accept incredibly harsh terms negating its core ideological basis; in contrast, the mullahs’ regime will be granted full relief from nuclear-related sanctions, along with consent to continue its nuclear programme, although banned by six UN Security Council resolutions.  The democratically-elected Greek government has been forced to admit, in front of their own people, that all they could achieve was a “bad deal”, preferable only to an even-worse alternative; conversely, Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei could smilingly thank his negotiating team for its great achievement.  The Greek population – which only a few days ago voted to reject the terms – gloomily received the news of their country’s capitulation to European pressure; whether spontaneously or at the behest of the regime, Iranians celebrated in the streets.  Democratic Greece has been forced to accept blatant, colossal violations of national sovereignty – in practice relinquishing control over its own economic policy; the rogue ‘Islamic Republic’ has won recognition of its ‘sovereign right’ to enrich uranium under its own control, upon its own territory.

Barely a day after the signing of the Greek ‘bailout’ deal, none other than the International Monetary Fund (the ultimate financial experts) cried ‘the Emperor is naked’: in a publicly issued report, they basically conclude that the ‘deal’ has zero chances of being executed as agreed.  Similarly, nobody but a handful of starry-eyed naïves truly believes that the ‘Iran nuclear deal’ will ever be implemented as agreed.  In fact, not even the deal’s most enthusiastic supporters seem to entertain such illusions.  Writing about a month ago in the Time Magazine, one such supporter (a chap called Ian Bremmer) admited that

“The history of Iran’s nuclear program says it will cheat, and inspectors won’t catch every violation. In fact, Tehran may already have started, reportedly growing a nuclear stockpile it had promised to freeze.”

Still, Mr. Bremmer advocates the deal, on the basis that

“Even if Iran one day builds a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to use it…”

The rest of us, who are rather less cavalier and not endowed with Mr. Bremmer’s enviable clairvoyance, can only guess how “unlikely” that possibility really is; we can try to figure out what degree of ‘likelihood’ (that some jihadi finger will pull the nuclear trigger and obliterate our families) we are happy to tolerate.

You may wonder why anyone would conclude agreements that have – from the word ‘go’ – zero chances of being implemented.  And why was the mullahs’ regime (a rogue theocracy sponsoring global terrorism and regional sedition) treated so differently from democratic, tame Greece?

Some Western politicians (especially the self-appointed ‘progressives’ among them) appear to believe that non-Western or non-white people (especially if they are Muslims) must always be treated with kid gloves; that they have a God-given right to misbehave and that their misbehaviour must be treated with a degree of tolerance – like that of children.  Feel free to attribute that attitude to post-colonial guilt, to moral relativism, to some form of ‘Stockholm syndrome’ or to sheer stupidity; I think it stems from deeply entrenched (albeit carefully – perhaps too carefully – concealed) racism.

It’s called reverse racism.  Rather than viewing people as complete equals in rights and responsibilities, irrespective of faith or the colour of their skin, reverse racists tend to infantilise Muslims.  The latter are seen as having rights – even special rights, like children or disabled people; but, again like children, they are not expected to manifest complete responsibility for their actions.  In effect, reverse racists subliminally place Muslims (and less frequently other non-Western people) under some form of mental tutelage.

Reverse racist attitudes are manifest not just in the über-tolerant treatment of Iran versus the harsh handling of Greece.  They are visible everywhere: when ‘the government’ (i.e. a ‘paternal figure’) is expected to prevent young Muslims from being radicalised – rather than their own families and communities; when older men are allowed to take advantage of young girls simply because the men are Muslims and the girls white; when indoctrination and extremist propaganda in schools and mosques are seen as cultural peculiarity, rather than criminal activity…

And here is another, perhaps less obvious example of reverse racism: President Obama’s famous Cairo speech.  Made at the beginning of his first presidential term, the speech is full of nice words.  So nice, in fact, that they often stray far, far away from the truth:

“I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar [a famous school of Sunni Islamic doctrine] has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.”

“Harmony”? “progress”??  “advancement”???  Oh, pleeease!  There was, there is very little “harmony” in Egypt, a country ruled at the time – and now – by a ruthless dictator who imprisoned opponents and turned Al Azhar into just another propaganda tool; there was even less “progress” in a country where poverty was – and is – rife, where homosexuality is not even tolerated, let alone accepted, where one in every three women can't read and write.  Mr. Obama knew all this, just like every Egyptian knows it.  Yet he chose to ‘beautify’ the truth, rather than spell it out in its candid nakedness.  Some will say that he was just being courteous; but where does ‘courtesy’ end, at which point does it turn into brazen lie?  Why do tyrants deserve courteous lies more than their hapless subjects deserve the courtesy of being told the truth??  Would Mr. Obama have used such language, had he spoken to a Western audience?

The Cairo speech was made in the capital of a failed country – one that cannot feed its people, let alone develop and fulfil their natural abilities; yet one word could not be heard among the more than 6,000 uttered by the President: reform.

Yet Mr. Obama knows how to advocate reform.  Hear the tone of another speech – one made less than a year later, not at Cairo University, but at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  The topic was healthcare reform:

“… every single President has said we need to fix this system.  It’s a debate that’s not only about the cost of health care […].  It’s a debate about the character of our country – about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time; whether we still have the guts and the courage to give every citizen, not just some, the chance to reach their dreams.  […]  George Mason, the time for reform is right now.  Not a year from now, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now -- it’s now.  We have had a year of hard debate.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made…”

Question: when did the President sound like speaking to children who need to be placated and cajoled – and when did he seem to address mature, responsible human beings, who need to make crucial decisions about their future?

But let us go back to the Cairo speech:

“I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Reading these exhortations about Islam and “Muslims around the world”, one may think that this was the Pope speaking, or perhaps a Chief Rabbi.  Yet Mr. Obama is neither; nor was he speaking in the name of Christianity.  So why did the leader of a nation (the United States of America) purport to speak not to the host nation, but to the followers of a religion??  Simply: Mr. Obama was trying to manifest ‘empathy’ with the concept of ‘Muslim nation’ (ummah).  But why?  That concept is one promoted not necessarily by Muslims, but by Islamists.  Surely Mr. Obama does not believe that followers of Islam (whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas, whether speaking Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish or English) belong to one nation and should therefore aspire to reconstitute the Islamic Caliphate.  No, he was just cajoling, ‘making nice’ to his audience, just like one tends to do with children.

I don’t pretend to know how “Muslims around the world” feel, but I suspect that, like everybody else, they feel in various ways – as individuals rather than collective; and I know that, were I a Muslim, I would feel deeply offended by such patronising, paternalistic and ultimately racist attitude.  Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama’s speech, replete with such over-schmaltzed attempts at ‘endearment’, was ultimately received with coldness, as just another expression of Western hypocrisy.  Perhaps it would have been better if he spoke and acted towards Muslims with the same unadulterated conviction, with the same honest bluntness that he uses towards Western audiences.

Folks, there is nothing remotely ‘progressive’ about reverse racism.  It does not compensate for past wrongs, it perpetuates them in the present and exacerbates them in the future.  The key word in ‘reverse racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’.

Nothing to do with Islam?

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is a basketball legend and, no doubt, a role model for tens of millions of young people around the globe.  Which is probably why, in 2012, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed him Global Cultural Ambassador, with special emphasis on education to tolerance.  Add the fact that Kareem is a Muslim – and you'll understand why I read with extreme interest a commentary he penned for Time Magazine, in the wake of the recent terror attacks in Paris.

At first, I was thrilled: Kareem opened his article by acknowledging that “another horrendous act of terrorism has taken place”.  I was expecting some thoughtful analysis and well-pondered proposals on how to ensure that ’another’ will finally become ‘the last’.  But, soooo disappointingly, he proceeded to explain that “these barbaric acts are in no way related to Islam”.  And to complain that he even has to explain something so obvious.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi,
self-styled 'Caliph' of the 'Islamic State',
preaching to supporters in Mosul, Iraq

To claim that Islamist terrorism is “in no way related to Islam” is absurd, pointless and unhelpful.

It is absurd, because home-grown Jihadi terrorists do not come from Mars, they come from within our society; and more precisely, they come from within Muslim communities.

It is pointless, because reasonable people don’t blame Islam and Muslims en-masse; and Kareem’s ‘washing of the hands’ is unlikely to convince the unreasonable ones.

Finally, it’s unhelpful, because it attempts to slam shut the door leading to analysis and solutions.  Kareem is right when he argues ‘don’t look at me, I’m not to blame for this’; but he is wrong when he appears to say ‘it’s not my problem’.

I cannot repeat this often enough: Muslims cannot, should not be blamed – either individually or collectively – for the acts of a few extremists.  But nor can, nor should it be ignored that there are issues within Muslim communities, issues that enable extremism to grow in their midst like a cancer – wrongly tolerated, recklessly unchallenged until too late.  Muslims like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are certainly free of blame; but that should not make them free of introspection.

US-born imam-turned-terrorist
Anwar Al-Awlaki

As mentioned in a previous article, 20% of US-born Muslims believe that suicide bombing aimed at innocent civilians is justified (whether ‘rarely’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’), in order “to defend Islam from its enemies”.  45% of European-born Muslims believe that “Jews cannot be trusted”.  Of course, not everyone expressing extremist, racist opinions will go on to commit acts of terror; but it’s from the toxic soil of fundamentalism and intolerance that those poisonous weeds draw their venom.

20%, 45%... These numbers may represent minorities; but not fringe minorities.  The sane majority of Muslims (to which Kareem Abdul-Jabbar belongs) cannot merely shrug them away and sanctimoniously intone “nothing to do with Islam”.  The toxic soil needs to be cleaned – and who if not that sane majority will do it??

Mr. Abdul-Jabbar does not appear to understand this; fortunately, other Muslims do.

In an article entitled “Only Muslims can change the world’s view of Islam”, Mohammed Wattad (a Visiting Professor at the University of California at Irvine), opines:

“Terrorism today stems primarily from Muslims in the name of Islam, and we cannot brush off accusations about our faith just by saying that the terrorists do not act in our name.”

In her acclaimed book ‘The Trouble with Islam Today’, Canadian activist Irshad Manji pleads:

“When he [the Prophet Muhammad] was asked to define religion, he reportedly replied that religion is the way we conduct ourselves toward others.  A fine definition – simple without being simplistic.  And yet, by that definition, how we Muslims behave, not in theory but in actuality, is Islam.  Which means our complacency is Islam.  It also means the power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels, those who care about the human rights of women and religious minorities.  To do that, though, we have to snap out of our denial.  By insisting that there’s nothing the matter with Islam today, we’re sweeping the reality of our religion under the rug of Islam as an ideal, thereby absolving ourselves of responsibility for our fellow human beings, including our fellow Muslims. See why I’m struggling?  By writing this open letter, I’m not implying that other religions are problem -free.  Hardly.  The difference is, libraries abound in books about the trouble with Christianity.  There’s no shortage of books about the trouble with Judaism.  We Muslims have a lot of catching up to do in the dissent department.  Whose permission are we waiting for?”

Whose, indeed?  “[T]he power is ours to restore Islam’s better angels…”  Someone should tell Global Cultural Ambassador Abdul-Jabbar that education to tolerance, just like charity, begins at home!