Trump's Ban On Muslims
(A Personal Opinion)

 

 

I stopped being a supporter of Donald Trump long before he became President.  This fact speaks volumes in my blogs since he announced his candidacy.

I am still not a Trump supporter - and will never be supportive of any politician who deliberately targets minorities to appeal to the base fears and prejudices of the masses.

Trump however, for all his likely failed domestic  policies in the future, is absolutely correct to impose what is, in effect, a halt to refugees and 'visitors' from countries already deemed by President Obama as 'terrorist' states.

I want to draw on a personal experience here.

Some time ago (long before the Trump presidency) I was 'invited' to provide what would have been commercial services for a company from one of these designated countries.
I first checked the State Department's website because I was already familiar that this country was likely to be a designated 'terrorist' state - which it was.  I then further enquired about the provision of services and decided to decline the offer.  I candidly explained to the company that there would be many difficulties because of the State Department's designation.   Some of these problems could be overcome, however, if that company was prepared to undergo certain 'vetting' procedures.   The entity declined and that was the end of the matter.
Many years ago I met someone from a Gulf State who was anxious to develop a business partnership.  I was suspicious as to why with myself because I had no knowledge of this individual.  Again when an issue of possible vetting was raised the party declined to take matters any further.

Then there was the Libyan politician who wanted several 'introductions' to purportedly develop business contacts - and he turned out to be one can short of a six pack.   [Dunno, but there is something about that part of the world which makes it a 'culture shock' when these individuals from certain countries - notably 4 of those on the designated terrorist list - are 'parachuted' into our open societies immediately from their ultra- conservative Muslim environments. They sort of, go crazy.]

What you, the average reader, needs to appreciate is the following:   These countries over which a ban on refugees and tourists has been imposed are, as with Saudi Arabia, environments where if, for example, a woman is not fully covered, she is likely to be put to death - at the insistance of local Imams - by her own family.  I am talking about those bastions of democracy and free speech in the Arab (and it's entirely Muslim) world - Libya, Somalia, Iran, and the Sudan. 

I would also add to these countries, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and most of North Africa (the exception being Morocco) - and just for good measure throw in most of other Gulf States and Kingdoms - with the exceptions of Bahrain. Abu Dhabi and Oman.
In Iran the 'penalties' do not usually include death for such infringements (women not covering from head to foot or dressing 'immodestly') but 'severe' punishments, imprisonments, beatings and public humiliations for both themselves and their families.
In Turkey and Pakistan the onus is on a family member to put their daughter to death (to murder their daughter) to avoid public shame and humiliation.

You did not know this?    Ignore your mainstream media and check out these facts for yourself.

Yes Iran and Syria (Shia Islam) and Turkey (until Salafists can impose total control of that country) are not yet such brutal uncivilised places for women - but they are all moving in that direction - a world removed from that of Christendom.
In all of these countries (barring the 4 exceptions mentioned) Christians are humiliated on a daily basis.
Your mainstream media hid from you the fact that after the so-called 'Arab Spring' in Egypt, Christian girls were 'kidnapped' in an attempt to force them to become Muslims.  I do not want to be too pejorative in the use of emotive language here, but the humiliations were worse than had ever been experienced under the 'benevolent' dictatorships of Sadat, Mubarak and Nasser.  This was widespread across the Muslim world.  As soon as Islamists came into power, Christians were either slaughtered, butchered, murdered, or otherwise.

The most appalling crime against humanity was that not a single religious leader in Christendom, not a single politician in Christendom spoke out when they had a chance to do something to stop these horrors which they knew were taking place.

I could single out individual western leaders but they were all culpable so I will not point to any one in particular.

The indigenous Christian communities in Iraq, in Iran, in Syria, Sudan across most of North Africa, in Pakistan, Syria, and most of the Arab world, live in perpetual fear.

In Somalia and North Sudan Christians have ceased to exist (ethnic cleansing I think it is called.)  In some countries such Turkey, as with the Armenians, Christians are allowed in some areas to 'exist' simply as a 'public relations' exercise - to show the world how 'merciful' and 'tolerant' Islam is to its minorities in the Arab world.

In Saudi Arabia it is a crime for a local Saudi to be a Christian (let alone build a Church) and a majority of Saudi Imams would like to see the death penalty for such a conversion since Christianity is regarded not just as heresy but also as witchcraft - for which the penalty is death.

You did not know this?  You need to be better informed.

 

I do not blame the demonstrators against Trump who are coming out in their tens of thousands supporting refugees.

They have not see nor experienced the humiliations, degradations  and constant fear which Christians face in these horribly repressive Muslim terror States - and in others throughout the Arab world.
I have seen it up and close, first hand.  I can attest to these facts - and to much more.

As to reporting such facts to the local Somali, Turkish, Saudi, or Sudanese authorities, the likelihood is that the State itself will arrange for your arrest, imprisonment and murder should you even attempt to protest your discriminations.

We are talking about evil incarnate.

If it was solely a matter of supporting refugees seeking a better life - and escaping war and certain death, as I have said many times, if they pose no security threat, they should be granted shelter in Christendom until the wars have ended.

I have said this in the past and my views have not altered in this regard.

President Trump has done  America and the world a great service by banning these individuals who, as soon as they reach the shores of Christendom, are so appalled by the 'freedoms' of women to dress as they like, of gays and lesbians to marry, of the presence of alcohol everywhere, that they want to use the democratic system to restrict our freedoms and expressions at the earliest possible opportunity by introducing modesty dress codes, bans on alcohol, advocating the murder of gay and lesbian individuals, of single parents, of children born out of wedlock....and the list is endless.

Now most protesters against President Trump's ban know nothing about how horrible it is to live (or exist - since it is more an existence rather than a life) in these Muslim countries as Christians - where you are living in constant fear for yourself and your family.

Not only that but I would go much much further and include the ability of Muslim professionals to take up responsible positions - be it the transfer of senior personnel employed by global companies - to Christendom without enhanced vetting.

I want to draw on a personal experience to illustrate a point here.  (I could draw on many more but I am taking a less extreme example.)

I stayed in a 5* hotel in a non-Muslim country outside Christendom where the Senior Manager was Muslim.  The hotel was frequented by rich Arabs doing business in this country.  Even though I was very respectably dressed, one complained (I learned this from a sympathetic member of staff) because I was wearing a pair of short trousers in the Breakfast room and he (a wealthy Arab guest also staying at this hotel with his family) found it 'offensive' to be seeing me dressed as such.

(I would just add that I was of course wearing a very decent pair of pants, almost at knee level, socks and shoes and a half shirt.  My arms however could also be seen and the guest also took offence to having to see this.)

The manager was Muslim and insisted that I 'dress properly' in future.  No problem.  I complied.

That same 5* hotel had a bar on the top level and, while Muslim men were permitted to wine and dine their scantily clad 'ladies' (certainly not their wives!) they continued to insist that I wear long trousers and a long shirt so as not to cause the Muslim patrons any 'offence'.   I was also wearing a Christian Cross around my neck which the Muslim manager also objected to.

Now this is someone, I learned, who had spent time 'managing' a 5* hotel in the United States before returning to (what I am presuming - though I might be wrong here) was his native home country - a non-Muslim country and not in the Middle East nor North Africa.

I told him quite bluntly that should he return to the United States (or be posted by this global transnational hotel group) again and attempt to impose such restrictive practices on guests using his position as a General Manager, they would not be well-received.    I did however, conform with the requirements he insisted on but I was also aware that they were being selectively imposed and that other hotels in the same hotel chain, which had non-Muslim Managers - had no such policy restrictions on guests.    His executive actions were solely based on his own background and the pressure being applied by Muslim patrons on him, as a fellow-Muslim, which he did not have the strength of character to dismiss.

This is just one of many examples of why I believe extreme vetting for professionals should be included as a major component of this ban.

Another part of the world - Somalia - has a culture so alien to Christendom that for the life of me, I just don't understand how such Muslim individuals can adjust to the trauma of everything they see when they arrive in Christendom - girls wearing shorts, bikinis, lovers (male and female) holding hands in public, 'provocative' clothing styles and hair fashions, etc etc all of which are 'Haram' (forbidden) - often on the pain of death - in these authoritarian (terror) Muslim states.

I want to return to the theme of 'dumbing down' of the population in Christendom.   The absence of  a true picture about what it is like as a Christian to live in these Christian-repressive Muslim countries  means that the general populace is looking at the issues with little real knowledge about what they are protesting against in order to protect 'freedom and democracy'.

I do agree that if all Muslims were banned from entering the United States and Europe then I too would be on the protest lines in an instant.  But this is not the case. 

Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, is a good example of a pluralistic Muslim democratic country in the absence of Saudi fanatics (not however without its own stresses and tensions caused by foreign Islamic extremists) is not on this list of banned countries.  Neither is Malaysia (a more conservative Muslim country which has a semblance of democracy and certainly practices ethnic and religious tolerance between Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists) nor is Morocco - one of the few Christian-tolerant Muslim countries in the Arab world.   I can attest to all of these facts because I have seen them and experienced them myself.

So this is not by any means a 'blanket ban' on all Muslims as the mainstream media is attempting to portray and rally support against Trump.

In this particular instance, they have got it wrong.

Decisions are being made by Trump to single out what are glaringly oppressive countries where Christians live in daily fear and terror, if not in abject poverty (such as Egypt) - simply because they refuse to renounce their faith as Christians.

This the mainstream media will never tell you - you need to discover it for yourself.

Donald Trump may not achieve his program of making America great again (I have always argued that America never ceased to be great) but, at least, I am of the view, that his policy of banning individuals from certain Muslim countries until enhanced screening processes are in place, and from countries where the rights of Christians are non-existent, will not be one of those failed programs and, in the longer term, will certainly keep American values safer than they might otherwise have been should such individuals - whose cultural and religious backgrounds      include the repression of Christian minorities by their respective majority Muslim governments - are allowed entry without very careful screening and vetting - to the United States and to Christendom.

Those three great bastions of democracy, womens rights and free speech - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt - are all excluded from this ban.  One of the three - Saudi Arabia - was not only responsible for 9/11 but is responsible for the rise of ISIL/ISIS/Islamic States and most of the Islamic terror and sectarian murders we see throughout the Islamic world today.
This proves folks, that business interests will always trump democracy and human rights regardless of the politician or 'non-politician' in power in the United States (or elsewhere for that matter) - for so long as you place your 'faith', for ever and a day, in politicians.

[I could discuss how a very (historical) liberal policy of tolerance, migration and accommodation of Muslim communities in one country, India , nearly caused that country's total collapse as a pluralistic open  democracy - the largest democracy in the world - but that's another blog for another time.]

 

©Patrick Emek, January 2017