Trump ban is a firm and correct decision
When analyzing a situation, it is important to be fair and objective to all the dimensions of the matter
We can’t conclusively claim that President Donald Trump’s decision, to prevent citizens of Iran and six other Arab countries from entering the US, was a verdict directed at Muslims. Had the US president aimed his decision to prevent all Muslims, the first thing would be to prevent Saudis from entering the United States. It is an Islamic state with all its population as Muslims and has the two Holy Mosques.
Moreover, President Trump telephoned the Custodian of the two Holy Mosques and a friendly conversation took place between the two in which they agreed to fight terrorism, and strengthen the historical ties. This clearly indicated definitely that the decision has nothing to do with Islam and Muslims.
His decision is aimed at protecting the United States from countries that are full of terrorists. Five of the six countries in the list suffer from security disruptions and devastating civil wars, which makes them a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. As a precautionary measure, it is natural for the US to shut its doors to prevent citizens of those countries from coming till such time procedural controls are introduced and firm measures are taken to cut down the infiltration of terrorists.
Needless to add, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia are all unstable and it is natural to ban citizens from these countries in order to prevent entry of potential terrorists. As for Sudan, there are other reasons such as security turmoil and unstable environment in the west of the country.
All the countries listed in Trump’s executive order are banned temporarily for objective reasons and it has nothing to do with racial and religious discrimination as Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood claimMohammed al-Sheikh
All the countries listed in Trump’s executive order are banned temporarily for objective reasons and it has nothing to do with racial and religious discrimination as Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood claim. When analyzing a situation, it is important to be fair and objective to all the dimensions of the matter. So we can honestly say that the motives and justifications behind the decision was a matter of national security.
There is indeed precedence of some countries banning citizens from conflict zones from entering their territory as a precautionary measure. Let us not fall for the bidding of human rights organizations, which deal with humanitarian issues from an ideological point of view, not based on reality and their manifestations on the ground. A prudent politician, who cares about security of his country, doesn’t pay attention to what should happen but to what is actually happening.
As for the decision to ban Iranian citizens, it is a brave and good one that was awaited since the time of President Barack Obama. However, Obama was too indulgent with Iran and let the country intervene in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Even some masters of al-Qaeda continue to live in Iran.
The question is how do one trust a state that is sponsoring al-Qaeda leadership and issues them travel documents in order to carry out terrorist acts in the US homeland? I would like to make one more point to my colleague, Anwar Achki, who took part in a dialogue on the subject in the Free Hour program of American Al-Hurra channel – God have mercy on those who know when to speak and when to keep silent.
This article is also available in Arabic.
Mohammed Al Shaikh is a Saudi writer with al-Jazirah newspaper. He tweets @alshaikhmhmd.