“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States. Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIAL WATCH
Cognitive Dissonance at the Core of Islam
Describing it “denigrates” it?
During a recent sermon, a Palestinian Muslim cleric denounced the un-Islamic concept that men and women have equal, innate dignity. His commentary included an earnest recommendation to marry girls off once they start menstruating. (The alphabet mafia, for some reason, hasn't yet insisted the same should also apply to menstruating boys).
Like all things Islamic, he turned to Mohammed for guidance: “Allah permitted the Prophet Muhammad to marry Aisha when she was 9 years old…I am talking about the Messenger of Allah! So we are not supposed to accept what he did because it contradicts international standards…?”
Here he is reiterating an objective fact – that Islam definitively permits child marriage. He is also providing the predetermined “reasoning” for this viewpoint, which illustrates the depth of the chasm between Islam and the rest of mankind: Mohammed did it so it can’t be wrong.
While this still may come as a news flash to a great number of people, the intractable problem is that, contrary to the Islamic insistence that Muhammad’s conduct is irreproachable (Koran 33:21), he did a lot of really bad things.
As Robert Spencer has noted, efforts to ban child marriage are viewed as an intolerable castigation of Mohammed; a Bangladeshi mufti, for instance, stated that “banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.”
Even though Islamic clerics authoritatively assert that their own doctrines are unassailable, that doesn’t mean that just anyone is free to express what those same doctrines are. Because, please try to follow this: if non-Muslims state what some of those teachings are, it suddenly becomes hurtful, and deserving of punishment.
It’s as if a Muslim, or any non-Christian, accurately described the ten commandments or, say, the beatitudes, and in so doing was considered to be giving offense, even though Christians by definition must uphold and defend those doctrines and spiritual orientations. The idea that accurately describing Christianity would also be offensive or denigrating simply doesn't compute.
Maybe it’s all about the content in question?
Author Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff certainly wasn’t free to describe authoritative Islamic teaching. Having spent her formative years as a daughter of a diplomat, and later on working in the diplomatic arena herself, she was exposed to the implementation of Islam in Iran, Kuwait, and Libya. As a result of her first hand experience, she became convinced that the Islamic worldview is incompatible with the Western way of life forged by Christian tradition.
Dismayed by the growing acquiescence to Islamic dictates back in her native Austria, she decided to share the fruits of her knowledge in a series of seminars. Quite a valuable undertaking, considering the profound ignorance of religion in general, and Islam in particular, in much of the West today.
Among the many things she related was that Mohammed married a six-year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. She asked rhetorically: what could we call this if not pedophilia?
(As far as I know, this would be considered statutory rape in the US today. Are laws against that “hateful” because they run counter to the example set by Mohammed?)
This single line (over the course of 12 seminar hours) was enough pretext for her enemies to pounce. They charged her with “hate speech”. Her exhausting legal ordeal went all the way through the Austrian courts, and eventually to the highest court in all of Europe. And they all ruled against her.
Found guilty of “denigrating religious beliefs”, she was fined. Along the way, she lost friends; her prospects for employment evaporated. It should be stressed (as she stresses) that she endured all of this as a result of actions taken not by Muslims but by Leftists, who infiltrated her seminars in order to take her down.
Since the Left is ever more brazenly pushing pedophilia, why would stating that a religious figure from another time and place engaged in the practice be considered “hate speech”? It’s as curious as it is spurious. Shouldn’t they instead be “appropriating” his example by saying, yes, this does amount to pedophilia – or at least to his being a “minor attracted person”, to use the recently surfacing leftist terminology – and that describing it as such should in no way be problematic?
In any event, the point is that freedom of speech takes a back seat to Islamic sensitivities, even if such speech describes what Muslims themselves endorse. Which calls into question why there should be any “sensitivities” at all.
Here we glimpse a bit of the cognitive dissonance embedded within the heart of Islam: when others point out that specific actions [murder, violence, terror, rape, taking of sex slaves, wife beating, child marriage, deceit, etc.] can be carried out in accordance with Islamic teaching, Muslims claim that is defamatory or inaccurate or “hurtful” while simultaneously defending those same actions as irreproachable.
Perhaps this reflects some sort of awareness on the part of Muslims themselves that certain practices are repellent. But that cannot be admitted because it would fatally undermine Islam itself; it could also get a Muslim who makes such an admission killed. Which kind of further proves the point.
Be that as it may, disingenuously claiming accurate statements are “hurtful” or “denigrating” can be an effective card to play whenever there is a receptive audience – a population with little interest in considering the truth of the matter. Leftists, of course, have no interest in the truth, but they are interested in anything they can use as an instrument of destruction, which is their ultimate objective.
It’s not concern for the poor, for women, for the environment, or dedication to “science” that animates the Left, but an appetite for dissolution. How do Leftists square their supposed adherence to science with their insistence that chromosomes don’t really have any conclusive scientific standing; that anyone can truly become a member of the opposite sex? Talk about cognitive dissonance! It always accompanies the repudiation of truth.
Germany’s Michael Stürzenberger, to give but one further example, was also recently convicted of “denigrating Islam” because he shared a historical photograph of a leading Islamic cleric, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, meeting with a leading member of the Nazis during World War II. (He was also assaulted – yet again – on the streets of Gladbeck just the other day).
Let us ponder for a moment this charge of “denigration”. By definition, it is leveled at those who unfairly criticize, disparage, or vilify. It is not leveled against those who properly denounce what is objectionable.
One might then wonder: is it the sanctioning of certain practices widely and intuitively known to be abhorrent that is denigrating? If so, it must be said that Islam denigrates itself. If not, how on earth could noting that Islam sanctions unsavory practices be denigrating?
How can noticing the problem be the problem? Islam cannot denigrate itself, but outsiders can denigrate it by restating its precepts. You tell me how that makes sense.
Anyone, Muslims included, would have a tough time doing so. Many are simply unaware of this inconsistency. Others dismiss the question entirely, keep quiet, and go about their lives. Still others may lash out defensively, unable to explain the incongruence.
Then, of course, there are those that incorrigibly stand by the notion that no Islamic practice could ever be criticized; and that, further, the rest of mankind should also regard all things Islamic as entirely proper, and that everyone should be Muslim and submit to Sharia law. From its inception, this has been the official, prevailing mindset. One we’ve been rudely reintroduced to in recent decades.
We are left to wonder: how can harmony ever flow from that which is fundamentally dissonant?
Matthew Hanley is the author (most recently) of the award-winning book, Determining Death by Neurological Criteria: Current Practice and Ethics, a joint publication of the National Catholic Bioethics Center and Catholic University of America Press.
Iranian Terrorists Will Get Billions of Dollars Before Congress Can Review New Nuclear Deal
Iran will gain immediate access to billions of dollars in cash assets on the day a new nuclear accord is signed, money that will flow to Tehran's top terror organizations before Congress has a chance to review the deal, former senior U.S. officials and experts told the Washington Free Beacon.
Sanctioned entities linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)—the country's paramilitary fighting force that is trying to assassinate U.S. officials—will receive a massive influx of cash the moment the deal is signed. The Biden administration will also release some $7 billion in frozen assets tied to IRGC funding "prior to a single day of congressional review," Richard Goldberg, former director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction on the White House National Security Council, told the Free Beacon.
"While Iran is actively trying to assassinate former U.S. officials and kidnap Iranian Americans, the Biden administration is offering Iran billions in upfront sanctions relief for the IRGC prior to a single day of congressional review," Goldberg said. Other former U.S. officials who worked on the Iran portfolio estimate that about 172 sanctions will be lifted before the deal is submitted to Congress.
As the Biden administration and its European allies inch closer to securing a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear accord, former officials like Goldberg say Iran's global terrorism enterprise stands to receive an immediate boost in cash and clout as sanctions that handicapped Tehran's militant operations are lifted before Congress gets the chance to exercise its legal mandate to review and approve the deal. This day-one sanctions relief is part of a concessions package crafted by the United States to assure Iran that it will get access to hard currency even if Congress rejects the deal and pushes to maintain sanctions on the hardline regime.
While the Biden administration is barred from lifting sanctions before Congress reviews the deal, the White House is reportedly considering a workaround that will go into effect at the moment the deal is signed. President Joe Biden is expected to cancel three Trump administration executive orders that authorized sanctions on entities tied to Iran's IRGC, according to former U.S. officials and a recent policy analysis published by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a nonpartisan think tank.
The executive orders authorized sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, its petrochemical and automotive sectors, and its manufacturing industry, as well as its mining, construction, and textile sectors. If Biden cancels these sanctions, a large tranche of cash will immediately become accessible.
This includes $7 billion in funds parked in international accounts that "will reportedly be unfrozen prior to congressional review pursuant to" the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, or INARA. The act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 2015 after the Obama administration inked the original accord without consulting the legislative body.
Iran's National Oil Company and Central Bank will be poised to receive these funds once sanctions are lifted. Both entities are designated under terrorism sanctions for their financing of the IRGC's Quds Force, which orchestrates terror attacks across the Middle East. Later on in the deal, terrorism sanctions on both of these entities will be lifted.
"Since this release is clearly tied to the nuclear deal negotiations, issuing a [sanctions] waiver before submitting the deal to Congress would be an even more brazen circumvention of INARA," according to FDD's analysis.
The Iranian sectors slated to get this sanctions relief generate an estimated 20 to 25 percent of Tehran's GDP and 62 to 73 percent of its non-oil exports, according to FDD. "Rescinding these executive orders may provide Iran with sanctions-free access to least $30 billion in annual export revenue, or more than $13.5 billion over the reported 165-day interim deal period—with that number growing after sanctions are lifted," the foundation predicts.
The initial $7 billion in cash—which will later be accompanied by around a trillion dollars in sanctions relief if the deal is approved—is part of a ransom payment paid by the United States for the release of four American hostages. That money has been frozen in South Korean banks but will be "remitted back to the Central Bank of Iran," according to Gabriel Noronha, a former senior Iran adviser at the State Department during the Trump administration.
Noronha said this money is certain to be used by Tehran to fund its global terrorism operations.
"We have a clear precedent how they will use those funds," Noronha said. "In 2016, President Obama's $1.7 billion ransom was sent from the Central Bank of Iran to the IRGC's budget account, which was then used to supercharge their terror activities."
Iranian officials even suggested at the time that "further hostage-taking would serve as an excellent method of balancing their budget," according to Noronha, who is a distinguished fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. "The Central Bank of Iran was also sanctioned by the Trump administration under terrorism designations for facilitating the transfer of billions in dollars and euros to the IRGC. The past is certain to repeat itself, and Biden's hostage deal would just pay for more Americans to be taken captive."
Further sanctions relief on the negotiating table would impact the Iranian government organization that funds assassination plots and puts bounties on the country's political enemies, such as author Salman Rushdie, the recent victim of a brutal stabbing attack.
Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran sanctions expert at FDD, said Iran's regime has made it abundantly clear it will not spend its cash windfalls on bettering its economy and people.
"Releasing frozen funds to the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism essentially puts Tehran's terror apparatus on steroids. That's akin to trying to put out one fire while causing another," Ben Taleblu said. "Regardless of the status of the IRGC's terrorism designation, a deal that still stands to offer major relief for other terror funding entities in Iran makes little strategic sense."
Lawmakers Push Back Against Biden Effort to Close Probe Into Iranian Nuclear Sites
Biden making ‘grave mistake’ by ignoring Iranian nuclear infractions
Republican foreign policy leaders in Congress are pushing back against an effort by the Biden administration and its European partners to nix an International Atomic Energy Agency investigation into Iran’s atomic weapons program as part of concessions meant to entice Iran into signing a new nuclear agreement.
Five Republican lawmakers led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R., N.Y.) wrote to the IAEA that its probe should continue until it has sufficient answers from Iran about its atomic weapons program. Iran has blocked IAEA inspectors from accessing its contested nuclear sites for years, with the international organization disclosing possible Iranian violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as recently as last week. Iran has also removed cameras that monitor its nuclear sites.
With outstanding concerns yet to be addressed, the Biden administration and its European allies "are considering acquiescing to Iran’s demand that the IAEA’s ongoing safeguards probe be terminated before the nuclear deal can be revived," the lawmakers wrote Wednesday, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. "This probe should be terminated only when all outstanding technical issues and concerns have been addressed and sufficiently resolved."
As negotiations over a revamped version of the 2015 nuclear deal reach their final stage, questions still remain about how close Iran is to building a nuclear weapon. It has been stockpiling highly enriched uranium—the key component in a bomb—while building out secret military bunkers suspected to house its weapons program. As part of the new nuclear deal, Iran will not be forced to disclose the nature of this work and will be given a greenlight to continue some of its most contested nuclear work, such as the joint construction with Russia of new nuclear reactors.
While the Biden administration said as recently as last week the IAEA’s probe must continue outside of a new accord, it appears to have walked back this demand in order to push the deal to the finish line. The issue remains one of the final sticking points in talks, with Iran saying it will not implement the deal so long as the investigation remains open.
The IAEA must not cave to the Biden administration’s political pressure to give Iran a pass, the lawmakers write.
"The IAEA’s important safeguards work should not be impacted by outside negotiations, and the IAEA should continue its technical work in the same professional and impartial manner as it always has under your leadership," states the letter, which was also signed by Reps. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), Ann Wagner (R., Mo.), Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Randy Weber (R., Texas). "We urge you to resist pressure to draw this vitally important investigation to an end solely for the sake of political expediency."
Iranian officials said on Tuesday that they will not consent to the IAEA’s inspections, calling them "excessive." The battle between Tehran and the IAEA has been percolating for many months as the Biden administration works on finalizing a new deal. The ongoing discussions have given Iran cover to bar access to the IAEA.
Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi said on Monday that there will be no new nuclear deal as long as the IAEA’s probe continues. "Without settlement of safeguard issues, speaking about an agreement has no meaning," Raisi said, referring to concerns by the IAEA about radioactive materials it found in Iran that could indicate a nuclear weapon.
"Joe Biden is willing to jeopardize our national security and the credibility of the entire nuclear non-proliferation architecture in his misguided and irresponsible rush to rejoin the failed nuclear deal with Iran," Tenney told the Free Beacon. "Iran violated its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by hiding nuclear sites from IAEA inspectors and since 2018, it has continued to stonewall investigators and conceal key information about its nuclear program. It is malpractice for Joe Biden to even consider a deal with Iran while it continues to violate international law and hide information about its nuclear program."
The IAEA’s Board of Governors, a political body, has also said the probe could end, according to the Republican lawmakers.
"We understand that the IAEA’s Board of Governors could ignore the IAEA’s technical expertise and professional assessment to make the ill-advised decision of closing this file even if Iran continues to stonewall," they wrote.
Doing this, they add, "would be deeply irresponsible." In order to maintain "the legitimacy of the IAEA, a priority we know you hold dear, we urge you to act in the coming weeks based on the technical facts and not the political winds."
No comments:
Post a Comment