Items are archived chronologically
and/or in order of discovery. Previous year in left column . . .
Islam, According To Someone Who Knows
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not
disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of
[other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country
in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand
why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know
nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those
[who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers
just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims
should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says
Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their
armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome
us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill
you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says
Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of
the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!
The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy
Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths
[sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight.
Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from
waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
Ayatollah Khomeini -- Leader of
1979 Iranian Revolution (1902-1989)
Obama And Islam
"Obama and Islam" by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz is a new
pamphlet now available from the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
No
president in American history has taken a more admiring view of Islam
than Barack Obama. Whether it is his repeated insistence that the
attacks on Americans and the war that has been declared against the West
have nothing do with Islam, or his flattering (and false) description of
Islam as a religion "that teaches peace, justice, fairness and
tolerance," or his unprecedented revelation that he considers it "part
of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against
negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," Obama in his first
two years of office has spurned no opportunity to speak well of the
religion.
Considering the long history of Islamic extremism, the militancy of
Islamic religious texts, and the justification that such texts provide
for modern jihadist movements, Obama's fawning rhetoric may be confused
for mere ignorance. But as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer forcefully
argue in their new pamphlet, "Obama and Islam," Obama's Islamophilic
outreach represents something far more disturbing than naïveté: a
conscious effort to appease Islamic supremacism in Iran and elsewhere in
the Middle East, and an energetic willingness to pander to the Islamic
world in general. The consequence, the authors show, is a dangerously
ill-conceived foreign policy that has betrayed American values,
undermined the national interest, abandoned staunch allies like Israel,
and forsaken Muslims who are condemned to suffer under brutal Islamic
regimes. Cheap flattery has rarely exacted such a high cost.
To
read or download the pamphlet, click
here. To order the pamphlet, click
here.
Indicators That Obama Is A Muslim
His biological grandfather and father were Muslims.
0bama gave strong support to the Cordoba House community center
and mosque to be built at the Ground Zero site of Sep. 11, 2001 at a
dinner celebrating the day's end of the first day of Ramadan at the
WH.
0bama tasked NASA with a mission of "Muslim outreach."
As a newly elected Illinois State Senator Obama sponsored
Bill SR0110 in the 90th General Assembly to declare November 1,
1997 to be Islamic Community Center Day.
See the whole bill here.
This is
Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbullah, proclaiming Obama a Muslim to
the ummah.
Obama Postpones Dinner For King
The New York Post
says Obama was due to host a lavish dinner for Saudi Arabia's
recuperating King Abdullah in New York today -- but postponed their
meeting following the Arizona tragedy.
Obama was to dine with the
king, who's recovering from back surgery, and 20 others at The Plaza
hotel's Oak Room early this evening. Sources tell us the Plaza was
due to be locked down for five hours for Obama's dinner with Abdullah,
whose entourage has taken over the hotel's fourth-floor suites.
One source said, "It was to be a five-course dinner hosted by the
president. Secret Service have been combing the hotel all weekend,
and the entire food court and first floor were to be locked down."
A White House spokesman confirmed, "The president isn't going to New
York tomorrow, the trip has been postponed . . . because of the Arizona
tragedy."
The king, 86, underwent surgery at New York
Presbyterian in November for a herniated disc complicated by a blood
clot on his spine. He left the hospital in December and moved to
the Waldorf-Astoria to recover.
But sources said he's since
taken up the Plaza's entire fourth floor for his entourage, including
his personal chef. The White House has kept a close eye on his
progress. Vice President Joe Biden visited his family in the
hospital on Dec. 15, and on Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
met with him at The Plaza.
Obama also spoke with Abdullah on
Dec. 26 from his Hawaii vacation to wish him well. In a statement,
the White House said the king congratulated him on winning Senate
approval of a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty with Russia: "The president
thanked him and told him that he looked forward to working closely
together in the coming year." The US announced last year it plans
to offer the Saudis $60 billion in fighter jets and helicopters.
Reps for the Saudi royal family didn't get back to us and reps for
The Plaza declined to comment.
Obama will have to put off reporting in to the boss till a later
time.
Mr. Empathy
Barack Obama doesn't want to offend the sensibilities of folks who
aren't Christian by celebrating Christmas, and avoids any reference to
the birth of Christ -- even though it's a federal holiday -- at least
that's his excuse.
But
the "alleged" Christian, who rarely, if ever, attends Christian
services, has no problem offending Christians by attending services in a
mosque.
The photo above (left) was
taken in a mosque in Istanbul, Turkey. It shows Obama
preparing for an Islamic service taking place in the Sultan Ahmed Mosque.
And in the right photo, Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan
remove their shoes as they visit the Blue Mosque with Muslim clerics
Emrullah Hatipoglu (R) and Mustafa Cagrici (L) in Istanbul, Turkey.
These photos were taken during Obama's trip to Turkey, last Spring,
when Obama said, that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian
nation..." Obama has made similar statements in the past. In June
2007, he told CBS, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian
nation -- at least, not just.
But that’s not what the U.S.
Supreme Court
ruled
when, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 437
(1892), they held that "this is a Christian nation." They meant that
this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles, and that
those who brought these biblical principles to this land and who
implemented those principles in our system of government were for the
most part professing Christians who were actively involved with
Christian churches -- 51 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional
Convention were members of Christian churches, and that leading American
political figures in the founding era quoted the Bible far more than any
other source.
And the ideals on which they framed the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution -- that man is subject to the laws
of nature and of nature’s God, that God created man equal and endowed
him with basic unalienable rights, that human nature is sinful and
therefore government power must be carefully restrained by the
Constitution -- are ideals that they derived, directly or indirectly,
from the Bible. Some of these ideals may be shared by those of
other religious traditions. But the Founding Fathers, with few
exceptions, did not read the Koran, or the Upanishads, or the Bagavigita.
They read the Bible, and they heard the Bible preached on Sunday
mornings.
Besides denying that America is a Christian nation in
his April 6 news conference in Turkey, President Obama told the Turkish
Parliament on the same day: " We will convey our deep appreciation for
the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape
the world -- including in my own country."
The suggestion that
Islam has shaped America in any substantial way is ludicrious. As Robert
Spencer asks:
Were there Muslims along Paul Revere’s ride,
or standing next to Patrick Henry when he proclaimed, "Give me
liberty or give me death"? Where there Muslims among the
framers or signers of the Declaration of Independence, which states
that all men -- not just Muslims, as Islamic law would have it --
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Were
there Muslims among those who drafted the Constitution and
vigorously debated its provisions, or among those who enumerated the
Bill of Rights, which guarantees -- again in contradiction to the
tenets of Islamic law -- that there should be no established
national religion, and that the freedom of speech should not be
infringed?
The primary contact our Founding Fathers had with
Islam occurred during their struggles with the Barbary pirates, who from
1500-1800 carried over a million European Christians -- including some
Americans -- into Muslim slavery. For centuries the Knights of
Malta protected Europe from the Barbary pirates, but after their demise
the European powers decided that paying tribute to the Barbary rulers in
exchange for protection was easier and cheaper than fighting them.
(Hello Somali pirates!!).
But this galled the Americans. In 1786, while Thomas Jefferson and
John Adams were in Europe, they asked the ambassador from Tripoli by
what right Tripoli could claim tribute from nations which had done his
country no injury. Jefferson and Adams reported the ambassador’s
response:
It was written in their Koran that all
nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet [Mohammed] were
sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful [Muslims] to
plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this
warfare was sure to go to paradise.
When Jefferson became president in 1801, he refused
to pay tribute to the Barbary states, and Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis
declared war on the United States. The American Navy blockaded the
coast of North Africa, and American marines stormed "the shores of
Tripoli" and captured the city, forcing the Barbary rulers to agree to
terms of peace. The Barbary states soon broke the treaty and
demanded tribute again, and President James Madison again sent the U.S.
Navy to the Mediterranean, forcing the Barbary states to again sign a
treaty of peace.
Clearly, Islamic influence on the United States
was minimal, and what little influence there was, was mostly negative.
Much of the Muslim world has a negative view of the United
States. Sadly, Obama seems to think the Muslim world will warm up
to our country if he shares their negative view.
"US Muslims Part Of American
Family"
Debbie Schlussel
says she did not watch last night’s Barack Hussein Obama STFU
speech. She was too busy watching a screening of "The Rite,"
starring Anthony Hopkins, which she knew had far better acting.
But she heard that the most "memorable" lines of his speech included
lectures about gays in the military and how "American Muslims are part
of the American family." It’s funny how he didn’t tell American
Muslims that gays (and Jews and Blacks and non-Muslims) are a part of
the American family. That would be "intolerant" and "offensive,"
right? Frankly, since she has been
the victim of several legitimate, anti-Semitic death, rape, and torture
threats . . . ALL of them from Muslims, she’d like to know when
Barry Hussein O will lecture Muslims that Jews are part of the American
family and always have been, well before any Muslims slithered onto
American shores.
Ya know, Nidal Malik Hasan and Faisal Shahzad
are American Muslims, so she guesses we must welcome them and more Fort
Hood massacres and attempted Times Square bombings into the American
family.
The thing is that the rest of the American people are not
the ones who need to be lectured with the baloney that Muslims are a
part of the American family. It’s American Muslims who need to be
reminded that they are a part of the American family -- and they need to
start acting like it.
Also, note that Obama didn’t call them,
"Muslim Americans," but "American Muslims." They are Muslims, for
whom Islam is always first, and for whom "American" is a mere irrelevant
adjective of geography, not loyalty or pride.
Like Schlussel
said, we don’t need to be lectured about Muslims in America being part
of the American family. It’s Muslims who need that lecture.
His Master's Voice
FoxNews is reporting that Saudi Arabia
has threatened to prop up embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak if
Obama tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt, The Times of
London reported Thursday.
In a testy personal telephone call on
Jan. 29, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah reportedly told Obama not to
humiliate Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if
the U.S withdrew its aid program, worth $1.5 billion annually.
America's closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian
president must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards
peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity.
Yesterday, on Hardball, Chris Matthews was less excited than he has been
recently, yet this more subdued tone actually enabled him to conduct a
more interesting conversation. With TEA Party guests Phillip
Dennis of the Texas TEA Party and Matt Kibbe from FreedomWorks, Matthews
explored his fascination with the fact that so many Republicans
still believe Obama is a Muslim.
Dennis claimed he didn't know
what Obama's religion was, but "if he's a Christian I certainly don't
like the brand of Christianity he went to in Chicago for twenty years
with Reverend Wright." Matthews laughed at how Dennis was "playing
the game" and Dennis concluded that it was hard to argue that "President
Obama certainly has a soft spot in his heart for Islam." Matthews
responded that "I don't think [Obama's] anti-Islamic and I wonder why
you are?" However, Dennis wasn't backing down and declared that he
thought he had a right to be concerned with Islam, which he thought was
anything but a religion of peace.
Gaddafi: Obama Is A Friend
Aurelius
says yesterday we guessed at reasons why Obama has had trepidation
with dealing with Libya. We considered the fact that Rev. Jeremiah
Wright was tied to Gaddafi and we even considered the fact that the
White House could not spell "Libya." Another possibility: Obama
was afraid that Gaddafi would tell the world that they were pals.
Now, obviously, there is no way to confirm that Gaddafi and Obama
are actually friends unless Obama comes out and says it, but we can sure
report what Gaddafi said last year.
To quote Gaddafi:
"Now, ruling America is a black man from our
continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and
this is something we never imagined -- that from Reagan we would get
to Barakeh Obama."
Great. One of Obama's biggest followers is a
soon-to-be-deposed, iron-fisted ruler who kills protesters in his
streets. Later, in no uncertain terms, Gaddafi called Obama a
"friend."
The article continues:
Libyan leader Muammar
Gaddafi considers Barack Obama a blessing to the Muslim world. In
a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday,
Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a "friend" and said there is no
longer any dispute between his country and the US.
Speaking in
the Libyan city of Sirt at an event marking the 24th anniversary of an
American attack on Libya, he said, "At the time, we were the target of
the American cannon, the American navy challenged us in the gulf of Sirt
and attacked us all along Libya's shores. America tested Libya, and the
Libyan people resisted the large country, but today, thank God, the
difference is great..." Gaddafi stressed that Obama's presidency is
"a major historical gain" and said, "He is someone I consider a friend.
He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African
belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent.
He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted
in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards
peace."
He continued, "I urge all peoples to give him this chance
and to support this policy, because America is a country that, when its
policy is bad -- harms the world, and when it is good -- it helps the
world."
Obama Won't Confront Radical Islam
Kendra Marr
says
that Newt Gingrich blasted the Obama administration at a policy briefing
in Iowa for what he labels a refusal to confront radical Islam.
"Until you replace this president and until
you have the Congress and the new president replace large parts of
our bureaucracies, we're going to continue to be dominated by a
secular, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish elite, which is seeking to
impose on us rules that make zero sense."
Gingrich, answering a question about
challenging Sharia law on U.S. soil, said the country's leadership was
"so afraid to tell the truth" and "timid" that it didn't swiftly
prosecute the Pakistani immigrant who was sentenced to life in prison
last year for planting a bomb in Times Square. And he pointed out
that the federal government has sued a school district for denying a
Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.
"I simply suggest that every church in the
country announce there is a new principle that visiting Bethlehem
every year for three weeks is an important part of your devotion."
"The whole thing collapses," he added. "It's
an absurdity. It's part of this desperation of our secular elites
to do everything they can to prove they are not anti-Muslim."
Gingrich insisted that he's not anti-Muslim himself, but that he is
"deeply opposed" to the religion's radical wing that represses women,
homosexuals and Christians.
"I think it's time to have the courage to
stand up and say that we represent an insistence on modernity ...
and we represent a decisive opposition to those who would kill us
for the purpose of imposing our beliefs on the rest of us. And
we are prepared to say an act of terrorism is an act of jihadism."
Historian: Obama Abandoning Israel
For Muslim World
Henry J. Reske and Kathleen Walker
say that
Barack Obama’s shift of American foreign policy away from Israel toward
a Muslim world that "hates our guts" is a perilous tack, historian and
author Bruce Thornton tells Newsmax. And Obama’s swing away from
Israel is "his most disastrous mistake," Thornton said in
this video.
However, Obama is not alone in making mistakes in the Mideast -- his
pandering to Iran follows in the footsteps of nearly every
administration since 1979, said Thornton, author of the new book, "The
Wages of Appeasement: Ancient Athens, Munich, and Obama’s America."
The power shift away from Israel has been going on for decades, said
Thornton, a California State University professor.
"George Bush
two, he pushed back against that, and I think there were some benefits
to that, but that ideal -- that some American president is going to step
in and going to resolve that long crisis -- is absurd," Thornton said. "What we should realize is that our staunchest ally is Israel, the only
functioning democracy in the Middle East, in the heart of a region that
hates our guts. And rather than undermining them and asking them to use
their citizens as sort of sacrifices for some mythic peace agreement, we
should support them to the hilt, and it’s a disastrous move on his
part."
Obama is appeasing Iran, Thornton said, adding, "Let’s be
fair, this has been consistently going on since 1979 through presidents
of both political parties."
Thornton contends that Iran declared
war on the United States in 1979 when it took U.S. hostages. It also has
financed Hezbollah, which was responsible for the attack on the U.S.
Marine barracks in Beirut that killed more than 200 Marines, and
organizations killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
"So they have been at war with us, but we haven’t responded in
kind," he said. "Instead we have tried various ways, whether Ronald
Reagan’s Iran-Contra fiasco or currently today the failed outreach of
Barack Obama, not to deal with the fact that this is an aggressor who
does not want to get along with us."
Obama has made the mistake
that many Democrats make, treating terrorism as a criminal issue to deal
with through investigation and prosecution instead of acknowledging that
radical jihadist simply hate the united states, he said.
Thornton
alleged that dishonesty surrounds the civil war in Libya, and he blamed
all sides for it.
"From the right, too," he said. "I mean the
guys who think there’s a bunch of Thomas Jeffersons and Samuel Adams out
there in Libya that we need to support because they want to create New
England town hall democracy.
"We don’t know who these people
are," he said. "We have chosen sides in a conflict and we don’t know
which side we’re supporting. We should have learned from what happened
in Egypt in a few short weeks, where it’s becoming clear that those who
have empowered by the toppling of Mubarak are the Muslim Brotherhood and
the Muslim Brotherhood is jihadist, anti-American, anti-Semitic
organization. And I’m not sure it serves our interest."
Obama Blows Off Easter
John Hinderaker
says
liberals often express dismay over the fact that a significant minority
of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim -- or tell pollsters they
do, anyway. On a recent television special, Cokie Roberts and her
husband Steve explained that those who say Obama is a Muslim are really
racists.
I don't think Obama is a Muslim, but I can understand
why many Americans are uncertain about his core beliefs. This
year, Obama let Easter pass without issuing any sort of proclamation.
That can hardly have been an oversight, as he devoted considerable
attention to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, a purely secular
event.
Personally, I don't care whether Obama takes note of
religious holidays or not. It would be fine for him to say that
out of respect for the separation of church and state, he will
commemorate only secular holidays and remain silent on all matters of
religion. But he doesn't do that. On the contrary, he has
made a point of issuing presidential proclamations on the occasion of
every significant Muslim holiday -- Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and
Eid-ul-Adha. Here is what he had to say about Ramadan last August:
On behalf of the American people, Michelle
and I want to extend our best wishes to Muslims in America and
around the world. Ramadan Kareem.
Ramadan is a time
when Muslims around the world reflect upon the wisdom and guidance
that comes with faith, and the responsibility that human beings have
to one another, and to God. This is a time when families
gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But Ramadan
is also a time of intense devotion and reflection -- a time when
Muslims fast during the day and pray during the night; when Muslims
provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for
people everywhere. For all of us must remember that the world
we want to build -- and the changes that we want to make -- must
begin in our own hearts, and our own communities.
These
rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and
Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the
dignity of all human beings. Ramadan is a celebration of a
faith known for great diversity and racial equality. And here
in the United States, Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always
been part of America and that American Muslims have made
extraordinary contributions to our country. And today, I want
to extend my best wishes to the 1.5 billion Muslims around the world
-- and your families and friends -- as you welcome the beginning of
Ramadan.
I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner
celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and
wish you a blessed month.
May God's peace be upon you.
What did he say about Easter, the most important
event in the Christian calendar? Nothing. Is it any surprise
that some Americans perceive Obama as more enthusiastic about Islam than
about his own self-professed faith?
Earlier today, Obama's press
secretary, Jay Carney, laughed off Obama's failure to issue any sort of
an Easter statement. On the internet, various left-wing sites --
led, I believe, by Little Green Footballs -- tried to defend Obama by
claiming that American presidents never issue Easter proclamations.
That is ridiculous, of course. You can read President Bush's
Easter proclamations, as well as the one Obama delivered last year,
here. A video of President Reagan giving an eloquent joint tribute
to Passover and Easter in 1983 is here.
As I said, I don't
believe that Obama is a Muslim. It seems obvious, however, that he
is conflicted about matters of religion, and that for some reason, it is
easiest for him to embrace religious observance unequivocally when that
observance is Islamic. So it is no wonder that many Americans
wonder what he really believes.
Obama's statement, "Islam's role in advancing justice, progress,
tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings," is absurd.
Obama Fails To Recognize Muslim Genocide,
Instead Bashes U.S.A.
Ben Johnson
says Barack Obama has proven he is more efficient than his
predecessor in one area: He managed to diminish the history of two
Christian nations in one presidential proclamation -- on the eve of
Easter. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a promise to call the Ottoman
Empire’s systematic destruction of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-23 a
"genocide," something none of his predecessors since Ronald Reagan had
done. Obama has broken that vow ever since. The day of
remembrance of the genocide, April 24, fell on Easter Sunday this year,
and Americans of Armenian heritage
pressured Obama to follow
through with his pledge this year.
Obama’s statement, issued on Holy Saturday, declined
to commemorate the Muslim genocide by name, but instead denigrated "the
dark chapters in our own history."
Obama’s
"Statement by the President on Armenian Remembrance Day"
referred instead to "horrific events." Although he wrote, "I have
consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of
that history has not changed," he decided to keep his own view to
himself (for once). Instead, ever-so-gently beckoned the aggrieved
parties -- the offenders and the survivors -- to resolve their
"contested history."
Obama’s solution to genocide: the Turkish Coffee
Summit.
Both parties promptly rejected the evasive edict. Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) chairman Ken Hachikian
branded the statement a
"disgraceful capitulation to Turkey’s threats." The Armenian Assembly of
America
added, "we expect the president
to honor his prior commitments and statements."
Meanwhile, Turkey’s Ambassador to the United States,
Namik Tan,
insisted the statement was
"inaccurate, flawed, and one-sided political characterization of
history." Instead, Tan
wrote, "We wished that the
president of the U.S., our friend and ally, had shared the pain of the
Turks as well." What’s a genocide commemoration without sympathy for the
perpetrators?
He, too, asserted Obama’s proclamation was
motivated by
"domestic political considerations," although certain strong domestic constituencies continue to lobby against
the use of the term "genocide."
Rather than hold Middle Eastern fanatics to account,
Obama used the opportunity to bash the Evil Empire: the United States.
In his statement, he added gratuitously:
History teaches us that our nations are stronger
and our cause is more just when we appropriately recognize painful pasts
and work to rebuild bridges of understanding toward a better tomorrow.
The United States knows this lesson well from the
dark chapters in our own history. I support the
courageous steps taken by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a
dialogue that acknowledges their common history. (Emphasis added.)
When Barack Obama hears about this horrific slaughter,
he think of the United States of America. Could there be any clearer
sign of his disdain and disrespect for the country he was somehow
elected to lead?
Why You Hold On To The Body For A Few Days
Bookworm
says here’s why I think Team Obama disposed of bin Laden’s body so
quickly: because they were so paralyzed by multiculturalism, all they
could think of was the Islamic imperative to bury the body within 24
hours. That’s it. I don’t think they thought beyond PC.
Here’s the problem: My husband got his hair cut today. The
hairdresser is quite an ordinary lady, by which I mean she’s not very
politically aware. Politics and current events are "out there"
somewhere. Her life is children, work, bills, etc. She told
him that bin Laden is not dead. Instead, the complete absence of
either a body or death photos is because the SEALs kidnapped bin Laden
and are keeping him prisoner somewhere. And so conspiracy theories
are born.
Had the administration held onto the body so that major
media outlets (including al Jazeera and the BBC, neither of which is a
friend to America) could have sent representatives to confirm bin
Laden’s death, conspiracies would have died a’ borning. Then, with
witnesses at their shoulders, the administration types could have
interred bin Laden’s body, somewhat belatedly, but in accordance with
Islamic law -- not out of respect to the man, but out of respect to the
religion. (Although if I was among the billions of decent human beings
who also happen to be Muslims, I would be offended to have my faith
stamped on his body. Better by far to treat the body with respect,
because we’re not pagans or barbarians, but to get rid of it quietly.)
Truly, the administration could not have made a more dreadful hash
of things.
No Distinction Between Islam And Islamism
Jonathan Kay
says that as an editor at the National Post, I often rely on three
letters to protect my columnists from human-rights tribunals: I-S-M --
these being the difference between spelling Islam and Islamism. he
former is a religion -- like Christianity or Judaism. The latter
is an ideology, which seeks to impose an intolerant fundamentalist
version of Islam on all Muslims, and spread the faith throughout the
world. Declaring Islamism a menace isn’t controversial.
Declaring Islam a menace is considered hate speech.
Geert
Wilders’ refusal to deploy those three letters is the reason that the
47-year-old Dutch politician travels with bodyguards, and cannot sleep
in the same house two nights in a row. For Mr. Wilders, the
problem plaguing Western societies is Islam, full stop. Terrorism,
tyranny, the subjugation of women -- these are not perversions of Islam,
as he sees it, but rather its very essence.
"The word 'Islamism'
suggests that there is a moderate Islam and a non-moderate Islam," he
told me during an interview in Toronto on Sunday. "And I believe
that this is a distinction that doesn’t exist. It’s like the Prime
Minister of Turkey [Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, said 'There is no moderate or
immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.' This is
the Islam of the Koran."
"Now, you can certainly make a
distinction among the people," he adds. "There are moderate
Muslims -- who are the majority in our Western societies -- and
non-moderate Muslims, but Islam itself has only one form. The
totalitarian ideology contained in the Koran has no room for moderation.
If you really look at what the Koran says, in fact, you could argue that
'moderate' Muslims are not Muslims at all. It tells us that if you
do not act on even one verse, then you are an apostate."
Unlike
most critics of Islam, who tend to shy away from the explosive subject
of Mohammed himself, Mr. Wilders forthrightly describes the Muslim
Prophet as a dictator, a pedophile and a warmonger. "If you study
the life of Mohammed," Mr.Wilders told me, "you can see that he was a
worse terrorist than Osama bin Laden ever was."
It is an
understatement to call Mr. Wilders a divisive figure in the Netherlands.
On the one hand, he is the leader of the PVV, the country’s third most
popular political party -- which currently is propping up the ruling
minority government. And Mr. Wilders has been declared "politician
of the year" by a popular Dutch radio station, and come in second in a
variety of other mainstream polls.
On the other hand, the Muslim
Council of Britain has called him "an open and relentless preacher of
hate." For a time, Mr. Wilders, even was banned from entering the
U.K. A popular Dutch rapper wrote a song about killing Mr. Wilders
("This is no joke. Last night I dreamed I chopped your head off.")
Before meeting Mr. Wilders on Sunday, I knew him mostly from his
most inflammatory slogans -- such as his comparison of the Koran to Mein
Kampf -- which his detractors fling around as proof of his narrow-minded
bigotry.
Yet the real Geert Wilders speaks softly and
thoughtfully. It turns out that he’s travelled to dozens of Muslim
nations. He knows more about the Islamic faith and what it means
to ordinary people than do most of Islam’s most ardent Western
defenders. Nor do I believe that Mr. Wilders is a bigot -- a
least, not in the sense that the word usually is understood.
"I
don’t hate Muslims. I hate their book and their ideology," is what
he told Britain’s Guardian newspaper in 2008. Mr. Wilders sees
Islam as akin to communism or fascism, a cage that traps its suffering
adherents in a hateful, phobic frame of mind. Mr. Wilders
describes Muslim as victims of bad ideas, in other words. In this
way, his attitude is entirely different from classic anti-Semites and
racists, who treat Jews and blacks as debased on the level of biology.
Of course, in the modern, politically correct Western tradition,
hatred expressed toward a religion typically is held on the same level
of human-rights opprobrium as hatred expressed toward a race or an
ethnicity. But Islam is not really a religion at all, as Mr.
Wilders sees it, but rather a retrograde political ideology with
religious trappings. He notes that while other religions draw a
distinction between God and Caesar, between the secular and the
spiritual, Islam demands submission in every aspect of human existence,
both through the wording of the Koran itself and the Shariah law that
has developed in its shadow. The faith also supplies a
justification for aggressive war; vilifies non-believers; and pronounces
death upon its enemies. In short, Mr. Wilders argues, it has all
the ingredients of what students of 20th century history would recognize
as a fully formed totalitarian ideology.
"I see Islam as 95%
ideology, 5% religion -- the 5% being the temples and the imams," he
tells me. "If you would strip the Koran of all the negative,
hateful, anti-Semitic material, you would wind up with a tiny
[booklet]."
It’s easy to see why many Europeans casually jump to
the conclusion that Mr. Wilders is a hatemonger. He wants to halt
non-Western immigration to the Netherlands until existing immigrants can
be integrated, and he wants to deport any foreigner who commits a crime
-- the same sort of policies as those advocated by genuine xenophobes.
But even so, his insistence on the proper distinction between faith
and ideology is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously. For
it invites the question: If we permit the excoriation of totalitarian
cults created by modern dictators, why do we stigmatize (and even
criminalize) the excoriation of arguably similar notions when they
happen to be attributed to a 7th-century prophet?
It’s a good
question. And as far as I know, Geert Wilders is the only Western
politician taking it seriously.
Obama: Freedom Or Islam?
The Washington Times
says Obama is trying to hit the reset button on his outreach efforts
to the world’s Muslims. He would do better to focus on
aggressively promoting freedom rather than pandering to Islam.
The first round of outreach -- kicked off by Obama’s June 2009 speech in
Cairo -- was a spectacular failure. Opinion polling on sentiment
towards the United States in countries with Muslim majorities showed an
initial burst of enthusiasm, followed in 2010 by a collapse. In
some cases, Muslim approval of America fell to levels lower than during
the waning days of the George W. Bush administration.
Now the
White House is using the timing of Osama bin Laden’s death to argue that
al Qaeda’s violent approach to political change is passe, and that the
popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East represent the wave of the
future. However, al Qaeda already has answered this argument.
In the Spring 2011 edition of the terror group’s English-language
magazine Inspire, the lead editorial by Yahya Ibrahim notes that a "line
that is being pushed by Western leaders is that because the protests in
Egypt and Tunisia were peaceful, they proved al Qaeda -- which calls for
armed struggle -- to be wrong. That is another fallacy. Al
Qaeda is not against regime changes through protests, but it is against
the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the
exclusion of the use of force."
Of course, not all change
occurring in the Middle East is peaceful. U.S. and NATO warplanes
support armed rebels in Libya, and al Qaeda notes that this vindicates
their views on violence. "If the protesters in Libya did not have
the flexibility to use force when needed," Ibrahim says, "the uprising
would have been crushed." This point is also being proved in
Syria, where the United States has been deaf to desperate pleas from
dissidents being mowed down by regime troops with the assistance of
Iran. No mere speech by Obama will bring a springtime of freedom
to Damascus.
Obama’s fixation on the means by which change is
coming also overlooks that the substance of the change may be precisely
what al Qaeda has always advocated. The White House has pushed for
the participation of religiously-based parties in Egypt’s new
government, but if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Cairo, it
will pursue domestic and foreign policies indistinguishable from those
bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahri would implement if he were in charge.
Islamism is the objective, whether achieved by bombs or ballots.
Ibrahim says that in al Qaeda’s opinion, "the revolutions that are
shaking the thrones of dictators are good for the Muslims, good for the
mujahidin and bad for the imperialists of the West and their henchmen in
the Muslim world." He says the terrorists, "are very optimistic
and have great expectations of what is to come." This optimism is
not unfounded. Obama should shift his focus from pandering to
Muslim sensibilities to helping shape the outcome of the changes
sweeping the Middle East in a way that reflects American values.
The United States is not at war with Islam, but neither should our
nation be promoting it. America has traditionally advocated the
principles of freedom of conscience and individual liberty, concepts
that are in dire need of support in most Muslim states. Taking an
unadulterated stand for freedom in the Middle East would be the most
gutsy move Obama could make.
Who gives a fig whether Muslims approve of America or not?
And I'm tired of hearing, "The United States is not at war with Islam,"
crap. Islam has been at war with the non-Islamic world
since the 7th century,
and Islam is most definitely at war with the United States.
Obama Should Condemn Anti-Christian
Violence In Egypt
Keith Koffler
says that even as he renews his outreach to Muslims, Obama should
seek to stem the growing tide of violence against Coptic Christians in
Egypt by condemning last weekend’s attacks that left a dozen people dead
and scores injured.
The attacks, about which Obama has been
silent, also resulted in the burning of Coptic Orthodox churches and the
destruction of Christian homes and businesses.
Obama needs to say
more to stem religious violence that creates opportunities for Islamic
extremists who want to seize power in Egypt, our most important Arab
ally.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Monday "strongly"
condemned the violence, saying, "We stand behind the Coptic Christian
community and their right to practice their faith in safety and
security, free of persecution."
The Wall Street Journal reported
yesterday that Obama is preparing to try to reengage Muslims with a
speech, possibly next week, that will make the case that Muslims should
"reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and
embrace a new era of relations with the U.S."
Whether Obama views
condemning Muslim violence against Christians as inopportune during the
lead up to a renewed outreach to Muslims is unclear, but it’s worth
noting that after Obama seemed inexplicably slow off the mark supporting
the masses of Iranian protestors two years ago, there was widespread
belief that he was concerned about compromising his outreach to the
Iranian government.
Obama, thoughallegedly a Christian, seems to view his
background, which includes a Muslim grandfather,
father and step-father, and several years living
as a child in Muslim Indonesia, as giving him a special conduit into the
Muslim world, but I doubt this type of personal outreach by one man
changes the way people view the United States, and it shouldn’t
interfere with other aspects of U.S. policy.
Obama commendably
condemned a New Year’s Eve church bombing in Alexandria, Egypt that
killed 21, but he has said little -- actually nothing that I could find
-- about the religious killings and tensions since then, which included
the deaths of 12 people Jan. 30 during a raid of Christian homes in
Upper Egypt.
Obama also should speak about about the growing
violence against Christians in Iraq, a country where we have some real
sway. Four were killed and 171 injured in attacks over the weekend,
prompting a reaction from Pope Benedict XVI.
Obama: Freedom Or Islam?
The Washington Times
says the White House panders to Muslims instead of pushing American
values.
Obama is trying to hit the reset button on his outreach
efforts to the world’s Muslims. He would do better to focus on
aggressively promoting freedom rather than pandering to Islam.
The first round of outreach -- kicked off by Obama’s June 2009 speech in
Cairo -- was a spectacular failure. Opinion polling on sentiment
towards the United States in countries with Muslim majorities showed an
initial burst of enthusiasm, followed in 2010 by a collapse. In
some cases, Muslim approval of America fell to levels lower than during
the waning days of the George W. Bush administration.
Now the
White House is using the timing of Osama bin Laden’s death to argue that
al Qaeda’s violent approach to political change is passé, and that the
popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East represent the wave of the
future. However, al Qaeda already has answered this argument.
In the Spring 2011 edition of the terror group’s English-language
magazine Inspire, the lead editorial by Yahya Ibrahim notes that a "line
that is being pushed by Western leaders is that because the protests in
Egypt and Tunisia were peaceful, they proved al Qaeda -- which calls for
armed struggle -- to be wrong. That is another fallacy. Al
Qaeda is not against regime changes through protests but it is against
the idea that the change should be only through peaceful means to the
exclusion of the use of force."
Of course, not all change
occurring in the Middle East is peaceful. U.S. and NATO warplanes
support armed rebels in Libya, and al Qaeda notes that this vindicates
their views on violence. "If the protesters in Libya did not have
the flexibility to use force when needed," Mr. Ibrahim says, "the
uprising would have been crushed." This point is also being proved
in Syria, where the United States has been deaf to desperate pleas from
dissidents being mowed down by regime troops with the assistance of
Iran. No mere speech by Obama will bring a springtime of freedom
to Damascus.
Obama’s fixation on the means by which change is
coming also overlooks that the substance of the change may be precisely
what al Qaeda has always advocated. Obama House has pushed for the
participation of religiously-based parties in Egypt’s new government,
but if the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Cairo, it will pursue
domestic and foreign policies indistinguishable from those bin Laden
deputy Ayman al-Zawahri would implement if he were in charge.
Islamism is the objective, whether achieved by bombs or ballots.
Ibrahim says that in al Qaeda’s opinion, "the revolutions that are
shaking the thrones of dictators are good for the Muslims, good for the
mujahidin and bad for the imperialists of the West and their henchmen in
the Muslim world." He says the terrorists, "are very optimistic
and have great expectations of what is to come." This optimism is
not unfounded. Obama should shift his focus from pandering to
Muslim sensibilities to helping shape the outcome of the changes
sweeping the Middle East in a way that reflects American values.
The United States is not at war with Islam, but neither should our
nation be promoting it. America has traditionally advocated the
principles of freedom of conscience and individual liberty, concepts
that are in dire need of support in most Muslim states. Taking an
unadulterated stand for freedom in the Middle East would be the most
gutsy move Obama could make.
The political lie may be that the United States is not at war with
Islam, butIslam is most definitely at war
with the US -- and the rest of the non-Islamic world. It has been
since the 7th century. If you're an "infidel," Islam wants you
dead or dhimmi.
Obama And "The Arab Spring"
Obama is thinking. Fareed Zakaria
says so, and
so does National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. Obama had
better be thinking, and hard, because as Andrew McCarthy observes, the
Obama administration needs to prepare "the political ground" for what
many Americans are otherwise going to perceive as failure in the Middle
East. A full dose of this political prophylaxis will be
administered on Thursday in a speech at the State Department. Much
rests on how Republican candidates and Americans in general react to
Obama's explanations.
James V Capua
says that we essentially need to be convinced that takeover in
Egypt, and Yemen, and maybe Libya, by Islamic groups associated with the
Muslim Brotherhood represent a success for American policy.
One Israeli-based website goes so far as
to suggest that Obama
"has picked the Muslim Brotherhood [...] as his chosen partner for
promoting American interests in the Arab world in place of its ousted
rulers." Absent more evidence, it is probably more reasonable to
see the administration's apparent acquiescence as an accommodation to a
new fact of life in the Middle East precipitated by their misguided
policy. Regardless, it certainly cannot be in Obama's interest for
it to be viewed as what it looks like: the triumph of militant Islam in
places whose regimes heretofore lent themselves, at least occasionally,
to furthering Western interests.
The induced demise of Osama bin
Laden can be viewed as a prerequisite for the big speech.
Rebranding is the key. The implication will probably be that since
bin Laden embodied militant jihad, his sleep with the fishes sounded its
death knell. As the always reliable Eugene Robinson
put it:
It's hard to overstate the significance of
bin Laden's killing. Operationally and psychologically, he
defined the Age of Terror -- not just for Americans and other
targets of his depredations but also for the terrorists who followed
his writ. With his last breath, an era died. The more we
learn about bin Laden's life in his Pakistan compound, the more
apparent it becomes that even in hiding he remained the central,
indispensable figure in international terrorism.
We are supposed to believe that Islamic terrorism
died in that squalid "mansion" and that Obama killed it. He gave
us that paramount existential good for all correct-thinking people:
closure. It is time to "move on." In the gutsiest decision
since the Emancipation Proclamation, Obama, like Lincoln (another
reluctant warrior), transformed the conflict. What once was a War
on Terror, the administration and their tame press will assert, has
become a true partnership in fostering democracy. Certainly there
may be times when, as in Iraq, force may be needed, but the objective
will henceforth be "soft." Now we can enable the democratically
expressed will of the people to prevail against the occasional militant
hold-out -- clinging to old, albeit thoroughly understandable,
grievances and blind to the boundless promise of Levantine Hope and
Change.
This fairy tale requires a rebranding of the Muslim
Brotherhood as well. In another piece, McCarthy suggests one
plausible line, manufacturing a false distinction between old-fashioned
hard-line
Salafists and a supposedly moderate Brotherhood. In reality,
he points out, "the Brotherhood and the Salafists are one"; in fact, the
Brotherhood was founded by a Salafist who sought to put the ideology
into practice. Meanwhile, everywhere in Egypt, institutions from
the police to the Coptic Church to the formerly premier Al-Azhar
University are being subverted, intimidated, or overshadowed, leaving
the field almost entirely to the Islamic Brotherhood. As Barry
Rubin has pointed out, even the few levers remaining to us to influence
Egypt's course, such as debt forgiveness, go unused.
Many have
noted the apparent admission of domestic Muslim brotherhood affiliates
into the counsels of this administration. Some have even charged
that the Justice Department has intervened to protect some Brotherhood
groups from prosecution. As Brotherhood-linked organizations and
individuals here exercise their apparent influence on policy, we seem to
be in the midst of revisiting a fearful time in our history, when
well-placed Communists subverted our post-WWII policy regarding the
Soviet Union and elites demonized those who sounded the alarm.
Obama's State Department speech on Thursday may be our contemporary
equivalent of the 1949 State Department "White Paper," which attempted
to sidestep administration blame for the "loss" of China to Mao's
revolution -- though in fairness to Secretary of State Dean Acheson, he
never took a sanguine view of the event. Regardless, the White
Paper failed in its objective. The resultant domestic controversy
only grew in intensity, and it influenced our politics for decades.
Ultimately, history proved the critics right. We can only hope
that Obama's Thursday speech has the same unintended result.
"Source of Islamic Awakening"
FARS News Agency
is
reporting that the Head of the Palestinian Islamic Council in
Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammad Nimr Zaghmout, said, "We are witnessing an
Islamic spirit in the Arab revolutions, and I prefer to call them
Islamic Revolutions."
"This has been the divine power and the
power of Islam which has led the revolutionary people in the regional
countries to victory," Zaghmout stated, underlining the Islamic nature
of the regional uprisings.
He also stressed the spiritual
influence of Iran's Islamic Revolution on the recent and current
uprisings in the region, and added, "I would like to emphasize the point
that we wouldn't have witnessed such revolutions and Islamic awakenings
today, if an Islamic awakening had not taken place in Iran 32 year ago
and if the Islamic Revolution (of Iran) had not achieved victory."
Late in April, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah
Seyed Ali Khamenei underscored the profound and vast influence of Iran's
Islamic Revolution on the growing wave of Islamic awakening in the
region, and voiced confidence about the desirable outcomes of the
current popular uprisings.
"Thanks to Islam and Islamic
Revolution, a public Islamic awakening has happened in the region today,
which will definitely yield its results as it has already yielded its
results in certain points," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing a group
of Iranian people here in Tehran.
"The more the people's
determination, faith and readiness for sacrifice grow, the higher the
chances of victory will be," the Leader continued.
Ayatollah
Khamenei also stressed that recent developments in the region have
surprised the US, European and Zionists, and warned that the arrogant
powers have conspired plots to gain control over these developments.
As regards the outcomes of the recent Islamic awakening in the
region, Ayatollah Khamenei assured that "this movement will eventually
serve the interests of the people of the region in future".
In
recent months, a wave of revolutions and anti-government uprisings has
been sweeping the Arab world. In January, a revolution in Tunisia ended
the 23-year ruling of former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In
February, another Arab revolution led to the ouster of former Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak after three decades of his authoritarian rule.
Other revolutions have erupted in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, while other
anti-government unrests are spreading in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman,
Kuwait and Algeria.
Related:"Arab Spring" -- US Ambassadors
Airlifted From Yemeni Diplomatic Mission
Meanwhile, Obama, a "committed
Christian," is supporting what he refers to as the "Arab Spring" and
"democracy movements" by sending billions in the form of an "Enterprise
Fund" to Egypt and Tunisia. What could possibly go wrong?
Obama’s Bow To The Muslim World, Round II
Bruce Thornton
says In September 1938 English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain,
explaining why he was flying to Germany a third time in order to make
peace with Germany, recited the old nursery rhyme: "If at first you
don’t succeed, try, try, try again." Cynical wags in the Foreign
Office, who knew Chamberlain was in fact appeasing Hitler by
surrendering Czechoslovakia to him, quickly began circulating another
version of the saying: "If at first you don’t concede, fly, fly, fly
again."
Obama’s new "outreach" to the Muslim world reminds me of
Chamberlain’s serial efforts to appease a Germany bent on aggression and
conquest. First there was the Cairo speech in June 2009, which was
supposed to be a "new beginning" for U.S. relations with Muslims, but in
fact simply indulged the same old bad habits of Western self-doubt and
historical guilt. Thus Obama attributed the "tension" between the
West and Islam to a "colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to
many Muslims, and a Cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were too
often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations."
Next came the videotaped New Year’s greetings to Iran, and the multiple
letters to the Iranian "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei requesting
"co-operation in regional and bilateral relations." These
outreaches were followed by Khameini’s announcement that "the path of
Iran’s nuclear progress could not be blocked," and by the brutal
crackdown that summer on the demonstrators protesting the tyranny of the
mullahcracy. Meanwhile Iran continues its support of terrorists
murdering our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama also extended
the hand of friendship to Syria’s Bashar al Assad, sending an ambassador
back to Damascus despite that country’s close ties to Iran and
Hezbollah, its assassination of Lebanese former prime minister Rafiq
Hariri, and its support given to terrorists by facilitating their travel
into Iraq and Afghanistan. Assad reciprocated by hosting a confab
with Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s genocidal Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad. And like his Iranian buddies, Assad has responded to
the current demonstrations against his regime by killing about a
thousand protestors. Nor has Obama’s abandonment of Egypt’s Hosni
Mubarak worked any magic in changing the Egyptians into liberal
democrats or even making them like us more. The jihadist Muslim
Brotherhood daily grows more powerful, attacks on Christian Copts,
abetted at times by the military, are proliferating, the border with
Gaza is open, and more and more Egyptians are calling for trashing the
peace treaty with Israel. Unsurprisingly, according to a May Pew
Research survey, only 20% of Egyptians view the United States favorably,
and only 35% have "a lot" or "some confidence" in Obama’s leadership.
In short, every time Obama has offered his hand to Muslims in
friendship, the less he and America are liked, and the less events trend
in directions favorable to our national interests. Now comes
another effort, the recent May 19 address to the Muslim world that
attempted to take account of the demonstrations and protests roiling the
Middle East, and to outline America’s response. And like those
previous efforts, this one will do little to change either perceptions
or events, for it is predicated on the same dubious assumptions and
misapprehensions that have compromised our reactions to the Muslim
world.
The main thrust of Obama’s speech in the main reprises the
same Bush Doctrine that Obama and his party spent years attacking.
The problems of the Muslim Middle East, in this view, result from a lack
of political and economic "self-determination" and "universal rights"
that prevents people from enjoying freedom and prosperity.
Tyrannical rulers and jihadist outfits alike exploit this frustration
and despair, attempting "to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere,"
as Obama puts it, blaming the West, colonialism, and Israel for all that
ails the Middle East. The solution, then, is for the United States
"to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to
democracy" so that people can obtain "a set of universal rights"
including "free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of
religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the
right to choose your own leaders." In addition, economic reform
will be supported through efforts "to build networks of entrepreneurs,
and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and
technology, and combat disease." More practically, this means
encouraging the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to
provide funds, asking Congress to create Enterprise funds for
investment, and forgiving $1 billion in Egyptian debt, with promises of
access to $1 billion more.
The "Muslims First" Foreign Policy
Daniel Greenfield
says in France, American
embassies and consulates have been directed to "empower" Muslims and
push for the passage of "social reforms" that will benefit them. In the
UK, American diplomats were directed to again "empower" Muslims and made
outreach to them a top priority. In Israel, the US consulate in
Jerusalem caters only to Muslims and does its best to pretend that Jews
and Israel don't even exist. And when Obama visited Greece, what else
did he do but push the political and religious authorities to open more
mosques and Islamic schools. America's own interests and our obligations
to our allies have been put aside to focus on a single goal of
overriding importance. Pandering to the Muslim world. It's as if we have
no other foreign policy goal anymore beyond keeping Muslims happy.
The United States has its first Special Representative to Muslim
Communities in the person of Farah Pandith. We also have Rashad Hussain,
a Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Hussain (Rashad, not Barack) had ties to
the Muslim Brotherhood, which helped create both Al Qaeda and Hamas, and
defended Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian. Farah Pandith is a Kashmiri
Muslim who began her career as Barbara Bush's secretary. But just
creating two new Muslim posts in the diplomatic sector isn't enough.
NASA Administrator Bolden told Al Jazeera that the agency's new
priority is outreach to Muslims. After gutting NASA and killing its
space program, the agency focused on its new top priority by appointing Waleed Abdalati, as its new Chief Scientist. Waleed Abdalati is a
twofer, as a Muslim and a Global Warming researcher. So the Obama
Administration gets to kill off the space program and replace it with
Global Warming junk science headed by a Muslim. It's what the devil
would call synergy.
Is any of this working? Does the
Muslim world love us now? No they don't. And France, the UK, Israel and
Greece like us less for tampering with their internal affairs at Muslim
instigation. All the outreach in the world can't help, because it's not
outreach, it's pandering. Not only is it condescending, but it sends a
message of weakness and desperation. When we pressure our allies on
behalf of Muslims, we're sending them a signal that our first priority
is fulfilling the marching orders we received from the Muslim world. And
this not only fragments our traditional alliances, but it encourages
Muslim regimes to support further acts of terrorism to improve their
position.
Since 9/11 we have sunk billions of dollars into the
Muslim world. Usually we had to defeat a country in a war before we
began rebuilding them, but now we rush to throw money at hellholes like
Pakistan and Indonesia where human rights is a punchline and the mass
murder of non-Muslims is an ongoing event.
Taking a look at the
fortunes we have plowed into Taliban’s godfathers in Pakistan, the round
the clock duty that American soldiers perform securing and rebuilding
Afghanistan and Iraq, the death grip that Bin Laden’s own adoptive Saudi
royal family has on our foreign policy, our bankrolling of the
Palestinian Authority, not to mention the money that we paid and are
still paying to Baathist and Taliban terrorists in exchange for not
attacking us -- and even the least terrorist prone country in the Muslim
world can’t help but think that it could do better for itself by bombing
us, than by trying to be our friend.
This frantic flurry of
outreach reveals that we consider Islam to be the primary threat to
global stability and a major national security threat. The positive
image reveals the negative. We’re so obsessed with pandering to Muslims
because we’re afraid of them. The Muslim world knows it, and gloats,
when it isn’t busy acting offended. The American public knows it too,
even behind the camouflage tarp of learning about other cultures, that
we’re trying to defuse the violence. But trying to defuse violence
through appeasement is not a good strategy unless you’re willing to go
all the way to Dhimmitown.
Libya is an independent Democratic State whering
the people are the source of authorities. The city of Tripoli shall be
the capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the
principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)...
The "law" is repeatedly referenced throughout the remainder of the
document.
First Egypt, now Libya. Rack up another
victory for our "committed Christian," Barack Obama.
The "committed Christian" honors Muslim holiday
(again)
David Jackson
is reporting that Barack Obama extended
best wishes to Muslims worldwide for Eid al-Adha, the Muslim festival of
sacrifice.
In a White House statement, Barack and Michelle Obama also
congratulated the millions of Muslims who are performing the annual hajj
pilgrimage.
"The Eid and Hajj rituals are a reminder of the shared roots of the
world's Abrahamic faiths and the powerful role that faith plays in
motivating communities to serve and stand with those in need," Obama
said in the just-released statement.
The AFP wire service reports that "more than 2.5 million Muslim
pilgrims began on Friday the rites of the annual hajj pilgrimage,
leaving the holy city of Mecca for Mount Arafat, where the prophet
Mohammed is believed to have delivered his final hajj sermon."
The White House statement:
Michelle and I extend our greetings for a happy Eid al-Adha to
Muslims worldwide and congratulate those performing Hajj. Thousands
of Muslim Americans are among those who have joined one of the
world's largest and most diverse gatherings in making the pilgrimage
to Mecca and nearby sites.
As Muslims celebrate this Eid, they will also commemorate
Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son by distributing food to
those less fortunate around the world. They join the United States
and the international community in relief efforts to assist those
struggling to survive in the Horn of Africa and those recovering
from the devastating earthquake in Turkey.
The Eid and Hajj rituals are a reminder of the shared roots of
the world's Abrahamic faiths and the powerful role that faith plays
in motivating communities to serve and stand with those in need. On
behalf of the American people, we extend our best wishes during this
Hajj season. Eid Mubarak and Hajj Mabrour.
This is the second Muslim holiday since Easter that Barack Obama has
"honored."
What did Obama do for Easter?
Nothing . . . from
NewsMax (4/26/20011):
The media and the blogosphere are abuzz with
dumbfounded reactions to the White House's snub of Christians during the
weekend. No presidential proclamation celebrating Christianity's highest
holy day of Easter was issued, compounded by the White House chief
spokesman's scoffing response to reporters' questions about the
omission.
As Fox News noted on Monday, "By comparison,
the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of
major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan,
Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha." On top of neglecting Easter, Barack
HUSSEIN Obama "also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday."
The White House did, however, "release an eight-paragraph statement
heralding Earth Day," which fell on Good Friday.
Obama still insists he is not a Muslim.
Decide for yourself. Use the "Search"
function to search on -- Obama Islamist -- you tell me if the results
are a coincidence.
Obama
congratulates his king
Saudi Press Agency
is reporting that the Custodian of the
Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah, received a congratulatory cable from
Barack Obama on Monday.
"Michelle (Obama) and I would like to congratulate Muslims in the US
and the rest of the world on the occasion of Eid Al-Adha, particularly
the pilgrims who have carried out one of the basic rites of Islam. We
are proud of the fact that thousands of US pilgrims have joined the
approximately 3 million Muslims in Haj this year," Obama said in his
message.
Obama said Eid Al-Adha revived the memory of the readiness of the
Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) to sacrifice his son. He pointed to
pilgrims offering sacrifices and donating the meat to the poor,
including those who are suffering from severe drought in the Horn of
Africa.
"While such a huge number of people from various racial and economic
backgrounds overcome their differences for a greater cause, in it there
is a lesson for the entire mankind that differences of people are a
source of strength and is a blessing of God that should be celebrated,"
Obama said.
"We would like to in these blessed days and on behalf of the American
people to offer our sincerest greetings to the Muslim world on Eid Al-Adha
and also to everyone who completed the Haj," Obama said.
If you forget who the Custodian of the Two
Holy Mosques is, it's this guy:
U. S. Presidents don't bow to anybody. Good
Muslims do.
We have to stop listening to what the liar,
Obama, says, and simply watch what he does.
Only then will you begin to understand who
and what he is.
Obama Ensures The
fulfillment of ZAKAT
Raymond Ibrahim
says from what American schoolchildren
are being
taught by their teachers, to what Americans are being told by Obama,
concepts unique to Islam are nowadays almost always "Westernized."
Whether the product of naivety, arrogance, or downright
disingenuousness, this phenomenon has resulted in epistemic (and thus
endemic) failures, crippling Americans from objectively understanding
some of Islam's more troublesome doctrines.
A typical seventh-grade textbook, for instance,
teaches that "jihad represents the human struggle to overcome
difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God. Muslims strive to
respond positively to personal difficulties as well as worldly
challenges. For instance, they might work to be better people, reform
society, or correct injustice."
Strictly speaking, this is by and large true. However, by not
explaining what it means to be "better people, reform society, or
correct injustice" -- from a distinctly Islamic, as opposed to Western,
perspective -- the textbook abandons students to fall back on their own
(misleading) interpretations.
Yet the facts remain: In Islam, killing certain "evil-doers," such as
apostates or homosexuals, is a way of "correcting injustice";
overthrowing manmade constitutional orders (such as the
United States) and replacing them with Sharia mandates, and
subjugating women and non-Muslims, are ways of "reforming society."
Those enforcing all this are, in fact, "better people" -- indeed,
according to the Koran, they are "the best of peoples, evolved for
mankind,
enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong [3:110]," that is,
ruling according to Sharia law.
So it is with the Muslim concept of zakat, a word often rendered into
English as "charity." But is that all zakat is -- mere Muslim
benevolence by way of feeding and clothing the destitute of the world,
as the word "charity" all too often connotes?
Barack Hussein Obama seems to think so -- or, given
his background, is at least banking that others do -- based on
his recent proclamation to the Muslim world that "in the United
States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to
fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to
working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."
Thus does Obama conflate a decidedly Islamic concept, zakat, with the
generic notion of charity. Is this justified? As with all things
Islamic, one must first examine the legal aspects of zakat to truly
appreciate its purport. Etymologically related to the notion of
"purity," zakat -- paying a portion of one's wealth to specifically
designated recipients -- is a way of purifying oneself, on par with
prayers (see Koran 9:103).
The problem, however, has to do with who is eligible for this
mandatory "charity." Most schools of Muslim jurisprudence are agreed to
eight possible categories of recipients -- one of these being those
fighting "in the path of Allah," that is, jihadis, also known as
"terrorists."
In fact, financially supporting jihadis is a recognized form of jihad
-- jihad
al-mal; even the vast majority of militant verses in the Koran
(e.g., 9:20, 9:41, 49:15, 61:10-11) prioritize the need to fund the
jihad over merely fighting in it, as fighting with one's wealth
often precedes fighting with one's self. Well-known Islamists --
from international jihadi
Osama bin Laden to authoritative cleric
Sheikh Qaradawi -- are well aware of this and regularly exhort
Muslims to fund the jihad via zakat.
More revealing of the peculiarly Islamic nature of zakat is the fact
that Muslims are actually
forbidden from bestowing this "charity" onto non-Muslims (e.g., the
vast majority of American infidels). "Charitable" Muslim organizations
operating on American soil are therefore no mere equivalents to, say,
the
Salvation Army, a Christian charity organization whose "ministry
extends to all, regardless of ages, sex, color, or creed." In Islam,
creed is a major criterion for receiving "charity" -- not to mention for
receiving social
equality.
From here, one can better understand Obama's lament that "in the
United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for
Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation," a statement that
unwittingly implies that American zakat has, in fact, been used to fund
the jihad. After all, these irksome "rules" to which Obama alludes
appear to be a reference to the presumably "excessive" scrutiny American
Muslim "charities" are subject to by law enforcement. Yet this scrutiny
is itself a direct byproduct of the fact that American Muslim
"charities" have, indeed, been
funding the jihad, both at
home and abroad.
In light of all this, what truly remains to be seen is how,
precisely, Obama plans on "working with American Muslims to ensure that
they can fulfill zakat."
