Friday, August 22, 2014

Imam Obama

Michael L.

Barack Obama is not merely a highly successful politician he is, apparently, now an imam, as well, and thereby qualified to decide just who is a Muslim and who is not a Muslim.

Speaking from Martha's Vineyard upon hearing of the beheading of journalist James Foley by the Islamic State (ISIS), Imam Obama had this to say:
So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.
Well, I suppose that depends on the meaning of the word "innocent."  Can an infidel possibly be innocent?  And what of Muslims who practice the faith incorrectly or do not meet standards of piety?  Are they not infidels and, therefore, also not innocent?

Let's see what the Quran has to say:
Surah 2:216 
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not. 
Here Muhammad (praise be unto him) tells us that violence is a good thing!  There is no indication that this is about self-defense.  It is about violence as a virtue.
Surah 4:89

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. 
Seize them and kill them wherever you find them?  And just who are these others in need of seizing and killing?  They are disbelievers, i.e., non-Muslims.
Surah 8:12

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
Every finger tip?  Now that sounds rather unpleasant, doesn't it?  It's rather difficult to imagine my buddy Jesus recommending not only head chopping, but finger tip chopping strictly for panache.  It adds that certain something to the Jihadi experience that you would not want to miss out on.
Surah 9:5

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Anyway, there is much, much more where this comes from.

The point is not to suggest that Islam must be a violent religion because its primary sources often recommend violence.  On the contrary, there are strains of Islam, and innumerable "quietist" imams, that honestly do promote peace.  Of course, there are also strains of Islam, and innumerable noisy imams, who cry to the heavens for the blood of the unbeliever, particularly those loathsome prophet-killers.

Of course, people will point out that when it comes to violence, no religious book on this earth is quite so bloody as the Bible.  The Bible is, hands down, far bloodier than is the Quran.  The difference is that the bloodshed is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Nowhere in the Bible are Jews told to hunt down and murder non-believers.

Judaism does not set itself up in opposition to other faiths, but Islam most definitely does.

In any case, I just do not like being lied to by the president of the United States because, indeed, there are faiths that call for violence against the innocent.  Islam does so directly in the Koran.  You can spin it any way that you want.  You can interpret the above passages to be about anything and everything, but what they actually say.  You can twist yourself into knots trying to explain how calls for violence are, in fact, not calls for violence but something else entirely.

You know, maybe the guy that supported the Muslim Brotherhood should just keep his trap shut when it comes to other people's religions.   If he cannot bring himself to speak truthfully, it would be far better if he said nothing at all.


Oh, and by the way, as an aside, how is that if Obama is so opposed to the Islamic State that he believes that Hamas should be part of a unity government?  So long as we are empowering Islamists, should not the Islamic State also be part of a unity government with Iraq?  No?  Why not?

The only real difference from what I can tell between Hamas and the Islamic State is that while Hamas kills Muslims and Christians and Jews, the Islamic State thus far has only been killing Muslims and Christians.  Perhaps if they get some Jews into that mix they can start courting the anti-Zionist left and thus be eligible for political support among westerners.

See, it points to the incoherence in Obama's foreign policy that I have been pointing out for years.

He favors the Muslim Brotherhood, but does not favor al-Qaeda.

He favors Hamas to the extent that he would like to see them empowered within a unity "Palestinian" government, but he wants to see the Islamic State opposed in Iraq and Syria.

It makes no sense.  One cannot favor the Brotherhood while opposing al-Qaeda, because al-Qaeda is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Either one opposes political Islam or one does not.  You cannot pick and choose which of these malicious Islamist organizations to curry favor with, because they all represent the same thing and they would all see you dead in a New York minute if given half the chance.


  1. Are Obama's statements really different from saying "those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah?"

    1. Hmmm...

      You know, Sar Shalom, I do not believe that would have occurred to me had you not brought it up.

      Would you care to be more explicit?

  2. You can't logically treat ISIS any different from Hamas. They are of the same ilk. They use the same rationale, the same justification, the same religious underpinnings. If you support one you have to support the other. If you go to war against one you have to fight the other.

    1. Right.

      I have to say, one of the strangest things about this administration is in its relation to political Islam.

      How is it possible that almost no one seemed to notice the ginormous disconnect between oposing al-Qaeda, due to 9/11, yet supporting the parent organization of al-Qaeda, which is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that has an ideological provenance that goes, in part, to Nazi Germany?

      Obama's foreign policy was clearly and obviously self-contradictory from the very beginning, yet almost nobody seemed to notice.

      In fact, to this very day almost no one points it out.

      What do you suppose explains that fact?