RUTHFULLY YOURS

“All imams need to be trained in Germany and share our core values. … It cannot be that we are importing different, partly extreme values from other countries. German must be the language of the mosques. Enlightened Europe must cultivate its own Islam.” – Andreas Scheuer, the General Secretary of the Christian Social Union party (CSU).
The Turkish government has sent 970 clerics — most of whom do not speak German — to lead 900 mosques in Germany that are controlled by a branch of the Turkish government’s Directorate for Religious Affairs. Turkish clerics in Germany are effectively Turkish civil servants who do the bidding of the Turkish government.
Erdogan has repeatedly warned Turkish immigrants not to assimilate into German society. During a trip to Berlin in November 2011, Erdogan declared: “Assimilation is a violation of human rights.”

A senior German politician has called for an “Islam law” that would limit the influence of foreign imams and prohibit the foreign financing of mosques in Germany.

The proposal — modelled on the Islam Law promulgated in Austria in February 2015 — is aimed at staving off extremism and promoting Muslim integration by developing a moderate “European Islam.”

The move comes amid revelations that the Turkish government is paying the salaries of nearly 1,000 conservative imams in Germany who are leading mosques across the country. In addition, Saudi Arabia recently pledged to finance the construction of 200 mosques in Germany to serve migrants there.

And Turkey is the country its Western allies believe will help them fight jihadists? Lots of luck!

In theory, Turkey is part of the international coalition that fights the Islamic State (IS). Since it joined the fight last year, it has arrested scores of IS militants, made some efforts to seal its porous border with Syria and tagged IS as a terrorist orga

Last year, a Turkish pollster found that one in every five Turks thought that the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris was the natural response to men who insulted Prophet Mohammed.

nization. Turkish police have raided homes of suspected IS operatives. More recently, Turkey’s Interior Ministry updated its list of “wanted terrorists” to include 23 IS militants, and offered rewards of more than 42 million Turkish

“Infidels who were enemies of Islam thought they buried I
At a March meeting with top U.S. officials, King Abdullah of Jordan accused Turkey of exporting terrorists to Europe. He said: “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.”
slam in the depths of history when they abolished the caliphate on March 3, 1924 … Some 92 years after … we are shouting out that we will re-establish the caliphate, here, right next to the parliament.” — Mahmut Kar, media bureau chief for Hizb ut-Tahrir Turkey.

liras (more than $14 million) for any information leading to the suspects’ capture. But this is only part of the story.

On March 24, a Turkish court released seven members of IS, including the commander of the jihadists’ operations on Turkish soil. A total of 96 suspects are on trial, including the seven men who were detained but released. All are free now, although the indictment against them claims that they

“engaged in the activities of the terrorist organization called DAESH [Arabic acronym of IS]. The suspects had sent persons to the conflict zones; they applied pressure, force, violence and threats by using the name of the terrorist organization, and they had provided members and logistic support for the group.”

The release of terror suspects came in sharp contrast with another court decision that ruled for a trial, but while under detention, for four academics who had signed a petition calling for peace in Turkey’s Kurdish dispute. Unlike the IS militants, the academics remain behind bars.

I spent most of my life in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria until a few years ago. Now, living in the West, I am stunned with all misconceptions and misleading information about Islam. It seems to me that this stems from a large propaganda campaign coming from various platforms ranging from the dominant liberal media to Western Muslim scholars who have never lived in an Islamic country, but only read books published in the West. Liberals are brainwashed to view the West as the victimizers and the Muslims as the victims.

While covering all the misconceptions would require hundreds of books, I am going to only address the truth about the hijab in this article and the fallacies that are taught to ordinary people in the West about veiling, Muslim women, and the idea of victimhood.

(I have covered other truths and aspects of Islam in my memoir, Allah: A God Who Hates Women.)

Two of my own sisters have gone through the phases of wearing the hijab. I believe that the repression and domination of women in the Muslim world begins with the dress code — wearing a scarf, or hijab; wearing wide garments, chador; and hiding the body. In other words, the religion of Islam provides the language for men to dominate women by Sharia law, which takes possession of a women’s body from the moment a girl is born.

On the surface, a wide garment, scarf, or hijab looks like a piece of cloth. But, in fact, the dominating power of this piece of cloth is extraordinary. The idea is that once I can control your body, and once I can confine your body, I basically own you.

I believe and personally witnessed that wearing a scarf and wearing a wide garment, do not have anything to do with divine religious rules, as some ignorant imams or Muslims attempt to promote. Hijab is the first crucial step to possess a woman and make her follower of Islam.

I argue that the process of enforcing the hijab on women and making it feel natural to them is carried out through several institutional and psychological steps.

The First Phase: Indoctrination

The first phase is indoctrinating the idea of hiding one’s hair and body in the mind of a woman. The process of indoctrination begins from the moment a baby girl is born.

One concrete example is my sisters. They were forced to wear the hijab at the age of 8 in the schools of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria. So even before girls reach the age that they can make decisions, before they know right from wrong, they are indoctrinated to hide their body. From age 3 or 4, they are repeatedly told about the “nice” things that will happen to them when they wear their hijab, and how they will be a good girl and be treated as a mature girl when they hide their body.

The Second Phase: The Superficial Pleasure

“This is not about freedom of speech, this is about insulting people’s faith. I cannot see anything that has to do with freedom of speech here.” — Mehmet Kaplan, on the Mohammed cartoon controversy, 2005.

Mehmet Kaplan told Turkish media that the reason young Muslims join ISIS is “the rampaging Islamophobia in Europe.” As a solution to the problem, he suggested that the Swedish government support mosques financially, ostensibly to counteract ISIS’s recruitment.

In 2014, three Muslims became ministers in the Swedish government. Clearly the most fervent and committed believer was Mehmet Kaplan, 44, who took on the role of Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

Kaplan came to Sweden from Turkey, at the age of one. Despite many claims that he is in fact an Islamist, until now Kaplan has been untouchable. That is, until it emerged that he said that Israel treats the Palestinians the same way the Nazis treated the Jews in Germany. At a hastily summoned press conference on April 18, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announced that he had accepted Kaplan’s resignation.

Mehmet Kaplan was a minister in Sweden’s government until last week, when he was forced to resign after revelations that he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to that of the German Nazis’ treatment of Jews. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Jan Ainali)

Kaplan, a member of the Green Party, has a history of being affiliated with various Muslim organizations connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, he denounced the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, for publishing cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed. In an interview with the Christian magazine Dagen, he said, “This is not about freedom of speech, this is about insulting people’s faith. I cannot see anything that has to do with freedom of speech here. This is an insupportable provocation.”

In 2010, Kaplan was aboard one of the ships of the flotilla sailing to the Gaza Strip, with the aim of breaking Israel’s naval blockade. He, along with several others, was arrested after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) boarded the vessel. Once safe and sound back in Sweden, he complained that the IDF “acted like pirates.”

“The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces into Judea and Samaria … In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence…” — Shimon Peres, Nobel Laureate and Former Prime Minister of Israel, in 1978.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964; three years before there were any “occupied territories.” Exactly what, then was the PLO planning to “liberate”?

Both Fatah and Hamas have always considered, and still consider, Israel as simply part of “Palestine.” On their current official maps, all of Israel is identified as “Occupied Palestine.”

“You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel, and establish a purely Palestinian state. … I have no use for Jews; they are and remain, Jews.” — PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, January 30, 1996 (2.5 years after signing the Oslo Peace Accords).

In view of these repeatedly intolerant Arab views on Israel’s existence, international law should not expect Palestinian compliance with any agreements, including those concerning use of armed force — even if these agreements were to include explicit U.S. security guarantees to Israel.

There is no lack of irony in the endless discussions of Israel and a Palestinian state.

One oddly neglected example is the complete turnaround of former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres. Recognized today as perhaps the proudest Israeli champion of a “Two State Solution” — sometimes also referred to as a “Road Map to Peace in the Middle East” — Peres had originally considered Palestinian sovereignty to be an intolerable existential threat to Israel. More precisely, in his book, Tomorrow is Now (1978), Mr. Peres unambiguously warned:

“The establishment of such a (Palestinian) state means the inflow of combat-ready Palestinian forces into Judea and Samaria this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other military equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. … In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence…”

Now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in apparent agreement with this original position of Peres on Palestine, is nonetheless willing to go along with some form or another of a Palestinian state, but only so long as its prospective leaders should first agree to “demilitarization.” Netanyahu, the “hawk,” is now in agreement with the early, original warning of Peres, the “dove.” Peres’s assessment has been Netanyahu’s firm quid pro quo.

The West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of the several bloggers butchered, flogged or jailed last year for criticizing Islam.

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, sided with the Turks. She condemned the German comedian’s poem, called it a “deliberate insult,” then approved the filing of criminal charges against him for insulting the Turkish president.

The West is veiling its freedom of speech in the confrontation with the Islamic world: this is the story of Salman Rushdie, of the Danish cartoons, of Theo van Gogh, of Charlie Hebdo.

Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, just released an interview with Italy’s largest newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera, where he suggested a kind of grand bargain: We Iranians will discuss with you our human rights situation, if you Europeans suppress freedom of expression on Islam.

Last week, Nazimuddin Samad sat at his computer at home and penned a few critical lines against the Islamist drift of his country, Bangladesh. The day after, Samad was approached by four men shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is great!”) and hacked him to death with machetes.

These killings have become routine in Bangladesh, where many bloggers, journalists and publishers are being killed in broad daylight because of their criticism of Islam. There is a hit list with 84 names of “satanic bloggers.” A wave of terrorism against journalists reminiscent of that in Algeria, where 60 journalists were killed by Islamist armed groups between 1993 and 1997.

But these shocking killings have not been worth of a single line in Europe’s newspapers.

Is it because these bloggers are less famous than the cartoonists murdered at Charlie Hebdo? Is it because their stories did not come from the City of Light, Paris, but from one of the poorest and darkest cities in the world, Dhaka?

No, it is because the West has capitulated on freedom of expression. Nobody in the West launched the motto “Je Suis Avijit Roy,” the name of the first of these bloggers butchered last year.

A re-affirmation of small government, ideally including constitutional limits on its size and regulatory authority within the economy, is necessary if stagnation is not to become the way of the world. Or we could ape Japan’s example and learn to live with little or no growth, not now or ever

Even with the federal election still at its phony war stage we can discern the assaults on our liberties and pockets that the next few months will foreshadow. Labor (still more the Greens) has set its spoon to plumbing the depths of the magic pudding as it tries to consolidate and build upon the excesses of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years.

To shore up its support base Shorten & Co., want to:

spend more on teachers and people with disabilities;
have a royal commission into banking to force banks to lend to those with sub-standard credit or to grant preferred terms to some borrowers;
leave the unions beyond the law, thus ensuring cost premiums which are 30% on construction costs;
triple the price of electricity by requiring a 50% renewable share,
plug the industrial attrition caused by energy and IR cost impositions by increasing protectionism and requiring local steel, even if sub-standard or excessively priced, to be used in naval shipbuilding and infrastructure;
promote LGBT agendas, including introducing “marriage equality”; and
introduce “more humane treatment” of refugees.

Conscious that government spending remains well above the “emergency” levels introduced in 2007 and that some of these plans will require tax increases in addition to the increased regulatory induced costs, the ALP is proposing to:

increase business taxes on multinationals
levy a special tax on those earning more than $180,000 a year
tax superannuation;
introduce higher taxes on capital gains;
abolish negative gearing on housing investments; and
increase tobacco taxes.

At least in the case of the first four of the above points, the measures would bring about lower savings and investment – the basic drivers of living standards – with detrimental economic outcomes.

In the latest push to stop North Korea’s rogue nuclear and missile programs, the United Nations Security Council on March 2 passed a sanctions resolution widely hailed as the toughest in decades. U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said “this resolution is so comprehensive, there are many provisions that leave no gap, no window.” But when it comes to North Korea’s merchant shipping ventures, these sanctions are a sieve.

True, the North Korean ships specifically blacklisted by the U.N. currently appear restricted in their movements, clustered around North Korea. But the blacklist omits more than half of the country’s relevant fleet.

Setting aside North Korean ships operating under foreign flags of convenience, there are more than 100 active ships flagged to North Korea, in a fleet regularly replenished by second-hand vessels, according to a report last year by the U.N.’s own panel of experts on North Korea sanctions. Currently the U.N. has blacklisted a total of 27 North Korea-linked ships. The U.S. has blacklisted 38 (including five that appear to have been scrapped).

Among the vessels excluded from either blacklist are three small general-cargo ships, all flagged to North Korea—the Deniz, the Shaima and the Yekta—that have been plying the Persian Gulf for roughly a year, making port calls at Iran. Two of these ships are registered in Dubai and one—the Deniz—in care of a company in Iran, according to information from maritime databases including Lloyd’s and Equasis.
The North Korean cargo vessel Jin Teng docks at Subic Bay, in Zambales province, northwest of Manila, Philippines on March 4. ENLARGE
The North Korean cargo vessel Jin Teng docks at Subic Bay, in Zambales province, northwest of Manila, Philippines on March 4. Photo: Associated Press

All three share intriguing common features. They were renamed and reflagged to North Korea within the past 18 months. The Deniz was reflagged from Japan, the Shaima and Yekta from Mongolia—which North Korea has used as a flag of convenience. The ships can be identified by their hull numbers, known as IMO numbers, issued under the authority of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization. Attempts to contact their owners were unsuccessful.

Since March 2015, the Deniz has made at least 10 calls at Iran, including at least four this year, shuttling among Turkey, Kuwait and Iran’s Bushehr port and Kharg and Sarooj terminals. According to Equasis, the Deniz’s registered owner since February 2015 is H. Khedri—or Hadri Khedri, according to the IMO’s shipping-company database—with an address for Siri Maritime Services in Tehran. The Yekta and the Shaima have been making runs between Dubai and the Iranian port of Abadan, which the Yekta visited as recently as April 5. CONTINUE AT SITE

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced Tuesday that the biggest military contract in Australia’s history, a $40 billion tender to build 12 submarines, will go to a French naval contractor. That’s a defeat for Japan’s bid, and with it a lost opportunity to deepen cooperation among the leading Pacific democracies facing China’s rising military.

Mr. Turnbull said he based his decision on an “unequivocal” recommendation from defense officials “that the French offer represented the capabilities best able to meet Australia’s unique needs,” including the imperative to operate across long distances. France’s state-owned DCNS will build a 4,500-ton diesel-electric version of its existing 5,000-ton Barracuda nuclear-powered sub, including a quiet pump-jet propulsion system rather than a traditional propeller.

As important, especially with national elections looming in July, is what’s in it for domestic labor. Mr. Turnbull promises “Australian workers building Australian submarines with Australian steel,” especially in swing districts facing auto-factory closures amid state subsidy cuts. Unions have been on edge since then-Defense Minister David Johnston said in 2014 he couldn’t trust state-owned shipbuilder ASC “to build a canoe.” Hence the need for foreign bids.

But all bidders agreed to build in Australia, so that doesn’t account for France’s win over Japan, which offered a version of its sophisticated 4,000-ton Soryu sub built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Australian sources say Japan’s problems ranged from insufficient crew space in its design to inexperience among executives and officials in exporting complex military technology, as Tokyo banned such exports until two years ago.

The most significant influence may have been China, Australia’s largest trading partner, which openly campaigned against Japan’s bid. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned his Australian counterpart in February to remember World War II and “consider the feelings of Asian countries,” arguing that Japan’s military-export ambitions represent a failure to “uphold its pacifist constitution.” CONTINUE AT SITE

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/

Nice try, Mr Corbyn, but the “19th century rabbi” you cite with such apparent authority in your so obviously barbed Pesach message to Anglo-Jewry was not called Joseph Morris.
As you see here, he was called Morris Joseph.