What must be done?
Tsvi Bisk
First of all the Europeans must take back their own countries. Before they preach to Israel to ‘end the occupation’ they must end the occupation of large sections of their own countries by their self-declared Islamist enemies. To do this they must first declare war on an entire battery of Islamist organizations and groups according to the precepts of the Fifth Geneva Convention on Asymmetric Warfare described above. Once this is done, domestic Islamist leaders who are citizens can legally be arrested for sedition or even treason; non-citizens for subversion. Others who do not belong to such groups can be legally prosecuted under existing laws for incitement to violence, violating the constitutional rights of women, disturbing the peace (when blocking traffic in prayer) and others. Discrimination against women should be treated as gender apartheid and branded as such. Laws must be passed to outlaw such behavior and be universally applied for every citizen, neighborhood and community, regardless of religion and ethnicity. Equality under the law is fundamental to western civilization and no exceptions should be permitted.
The police must, therefore, physically liberate the Sharia ‘no-go’ areas and maintain a substantial presence to guarantee that the laws of the country are enforced. Given their treatment of women, tolerating enclaves controlled by Islamists is similar to tolerating enclaves controlled by the Ku Klux Klan and the implications this would have for people of color.
The very existence and proliferation of these ‘no-go’ areas contributes to a sense of Islamist triumphalism that fuels global Islamism and enables radical Imams to enlist ever growing numbers of young disaffected Muslim youth to the Islamist/Jihadist creed. There is no way you can combat international Islamism while tolerating the evil of domestic Islamism. If necessary, martial law must be declared and troops sent in, just as President Eisenhower sent army units into Little Rock to guarantee that the laws of the country were enforced. Yes – that is the comparison I am making, and yes it is just as serious a civil rights issue (over and above the security implications).
The encroachment of abhorrent Islamist practices into the public arena must also be dealt with. This means making it illegal for anyone to cover their face in public areas (including women wearing veils) as the French have already done in a law passed in 2010. This ban was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights which accepted as constitutionally legitimate the French argument that it encouraged citizens to “live together”.
The French example must be followed by other countries. No entrance into public buildings or private businesses for people who cannot be identified. This is both a security and a law enforcement issue. Women with covered faces should be treated as if they were potential bank robbers or terrorists. In point of fact, the Quran does not require women to cover their faces with a veil, or bodies with the burqa. The Quran requires only that women and men dress modestly; not face or full-body coverings of any form. Ironically the veiling of women was a Byzantine-Christian custom that Islam adopted. Initially the Prophet Muhammad’s wives did not wear veils, nor did he require other women wear them. As he became more important in his community, and as his wives gained stature, Muhammad began adapting Byzantine customs, such as the veil, for his wives only. So there can be no claim of religious discrimination in forbidding Muslim women from covering their faces in public.
But even if there was a radical Islamist injunction for this practice, it would make no difference on principle. The same sort of radical Islamists that are presently corrupting the constitutionalist principles of Europe by advocating this practice also justify slavery as part of Islamic doctrine. Sanctioned slavery still exists in Islamic countries like Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, and Sudan. Saudi Arabia is home to the inherently Islamist Wahhabi Muslim denomination (Osama bin Laden was a Wahhabi) which endorses slavery.
The Wahhabi Islamic jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, has issued a fatwa stating “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” Al-Fawzan is not some marginal Islamist eccentric. He has been a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, a member of the Council of Religious Edicts and Research, the Imam of Prince Mitaeb Mosque in Riyadh, and a professor at Imam Mohamed Bin Saud Islamic University, the main Wahhabi center of learning in the country. Another prominent Saudi cleric, Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik, recently urged Palestinians to enslave the Jews: ‘Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don’t you enslave their women?’ Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Nigerian Islamist group Boko Haram, has openly stated that “I shall capture people and make them slaves.” when claiming responsibility for the 2014 Chibok kidnapping.
This being the case, would European authorities tolerate slavery in their Sharia ‘no-go’ zones in the name of cultural pluralism and religious tolerance? If not, why tolerate gender apartheid? Why does it matter that many Muslim women agree to the veil – what about the ones who don’t (not to mention the non-Muslim female citizens of the country who don’t wish to be accosted by Sharia vigilantes in their own country)? Constitutionalist protections – the very essence of post-enlightenment western civilization must be universal in all corners of the country.
An example of what not to do would be the rather obsequious Obama/Clinton reaction to the infamous anti-Mohammed YouTube video that resulted in Benghazi. Instead of apologizing for it they should have said something like the following:
While we abhor the offensive poor taste of this video we are greatly disappointed and angered by the childish and violent reaction of our Muslim brothers and sisters around the world which has resulted in the death of some of our citizens. Christians in our country were greatly offended by The Life of Brian – they wrote letters and picketed movie theaters; Jews were greatly offended by Mel Gibson’s The Passion and they wrote letters and picketed movie theaters. These were perfectly legitimate reactions – they did not kill anyone or destroy any property. These are not legitimate reactions. These movies were major productions with wide distribution not some silly YouTube video. We in America want to be good friends with Muslims around the world, but friendship is a two way street and you must keep in mind that our First Amendment is as sacred to Americans as Mohammed is to Muslims. If you want to be our friends you must respect this. As for the future, we will defend our embassies and consulates as if they were the heartland of our nation and meet any future rioters with deadly force delivered proximately or from a distance.
The actual wording of this statement might have had to have been a bit more diplomatic but the substance of it would have had to have been just as forthright and forceful. Apologetic whining that ‘we are sorry’ does not work with fanatics. If the USA (and the rest of the West) wishes to combat domestic as well as international Islamism it must adopt a tone that reflects a robust self-confidence in its own cultural values and zero tolerance for those that advocate acceptance of brazen anti-constitutionalist behavior in the name of multiculturalism.
The threat of violence on the part of Islamist fanatics or local street thugs cannot and should not be a consideration. Those that use violence should be resisted and arrested and sent to jail for long periods of time. Their time in prison should be monitored closely and they should be allowed no access whatsoever to any Islamist literature or media or visitors – even close family if they are Islamists. Prison cannot turn into a post-graduate course in Jihadism – as it has turned into a post-graduate course in crime in the United States. Zero tolerance for evil means zero tolerance for evil.
Click here for part I
Click here for Part 2
Clcik here for Part 3
Tsvi Bisk is an American-Israeli futurist. He is the director of the Center for Strategic Futurist Thinking (www.futurist-thinking.co.il/) and contributing editor for strategic thinking for The Futurist magazine.
He is also the author of The Optimistic Jew: A Positive Vision for the Jewish People in the 21st Century. Tsvi is available as a lecturer or as a scholar in residence as well as for strategic consulting
http://www.amazon.com/Tsvi-Bisk/e/B001HQ3J68/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0
If you just can’t wait for the rest, go here
Tsvi Bisk
