Is The American Muslim even capable of telling the truth?

obama-hot-air.jpg
What I really said about the Obama-Is-A-Muslim rumors

I have long suspected that the Clinton Machine would not allow the nomination, and the presidency, to escape its grasp, and this morning that seems more accurate than it has in awhile. But this isn’t about that, it’s about the soon-to-be-faded-away Obama and the Persistent Muslim Rumor — and about The American Muslim, a publication that seems somehow incapable of uttering a true and accurate statement.

Jihad Watch reader James has kindly brought to my attention an article entitled “Attacks on Obama Highlight Racism and Islamophobia,” by Sheila Musaji. In the middle of a long fulmination and whine about how everyone is piling on Obama and claiming he is a secret Muslim, she says:

The ever vigilant Robert Spencer accused him of being a Muslim apostate.

The link goes to this Human Events article from March 20, 2007, in which what I actually said was this:

The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Barack Obama’s campaign seems to be modifying its earlier affirmation that “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.” […]

If this is true, Obama could possibly be charged with being an apostate from Islam. […]

So is Barack Obama under a death sentence? Probably not — particularly if he left Islam while still a child. This is a crucial point, for according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty (cf. “˜Umdat al-Salik o8.2; Hidayah vol. II p. 246). Some, however, hold that he should be imprisoned until he is of age and then “invited” to accept Islam, but officially the death penalty for youthful apostates is ruled out.

So a piece on how the Los Angeles Times had reported that Obama was identified as a Muslim early in life, and how Islamic law probably wouldn’t consider him under the death sentence for apostasy, becomes in The American Muslim Spencer “accusing” Obama of being an apostate.

This has nothing to do with me; it is indicative of a pattern — a pattern that few Western analysts seem aware of or willing to consider in its implications. The mendacity of some of the self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesmen never ceases to amaze me. The lying is quite sophisticated, persistent, and unflappable — witness Steve Emerson’s contretemps with the thoroughly truth-contemptuous Edina Lekovic.

And The American Muslim is one of the worst offenders, as it also publishes the work of Robert Crane, the convert to Islam who has claimed to expose the “errors” of my book The Truth About Muhammad. Crane, you may recall, claimed that I misrepresented Qur’an 8:67, which says that “it is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.” I present in the book Islamic traditions showing that this was understood by the early Muslims as meaning that they should slaughter their enemies, not take prisoners of war. Crane says, on the other hand, that this means that “the taking of booty is legitimate but the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin and warranted a ‘tremendous chastisement. Spencer uses these ahadith to show the opposite.”

Sounds terrible, right? Sounds as if, blinded by hatred, I am willfully misrepresenting the texts — unless you happen to know what Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s first biographer, says about this incident, quoting and interpreting Qur’an 8:67: “God said, ‘It is not for any prophet,’ i.e. before thee [Muhammad], ‘to take prisoners’ from his enemies ‘until he has made slaughter in the earth,’ i.e. slaughtered his enemies until he drives them from the land. ‘You desire the lure of this world,’ i.e. its goods, the ransom of the captives. ‘But God desires the next world,’ i.e., their killing them to manifest the religion which He wishes to manifest…” (Pages 326-327).

Did you catch that? God desires that the prisoners be killed in order “to manifest the religion which He wishes to manifest.” Crane, on the other hand, claimed that the same passage meant that “the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin,” and that it was I who was wickedly twisting the meaning of the text.

This is a sophisticated manner of deception. Most non-Muslim and probably many Muslim readers would never realize there was any deception going on at all. It does not speak well of The American Muslim that they engage in this sort of thing. Caveat emptor — although all too many are willing, even eager, to buy, as if they are eager to be fooled.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    So is Barack Obama under a death sentence? Probably not — particularly if he left Islam while still a child. This is a crucial point, for according to Islamic law an apostate male is not to be put to death if he has not reached puberty.

    PROBABLY NOT?

    If this is supposed to make us more confident it’s not doing the trick.

    The author speaks of an apostate male. What of an apostate female? What about the woman accused of apostasy even though she was born to Christian parents? Two years after she was born, her father dabbled briefly in Islam before returning to Christianity. His experience while she was in diapers made her a Muslim for life, according to the Egyptian authorities.

  2. says

    “…it’s about the soon-to-be-faded-away Obama” –RS

    Really? If that’s accurate I’ll tell you I’m really surprised.

    As far as “The American Muslim,” to me that is an oxymoron, a conradiction-in-terms. And such a taqiyya-ridden dhimmi-ridden publication should not exist.

    I would rather read “Popular Mechanics.”

    More and more I realize the huge importance of Robert Spencer to the West.

  3. says

    Ishaq:327: “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'”

    http://infidelnation.org/DOWNLOADS/Sirat.rar
    8:67.
    It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
    http://www.ummah.com/what-is-

  4. says

    I figured that this sort of stuff would arise once Obama did not get elected – that we are prejudice because of that fact. It is the same old hogwash that blacks use against us.

    Well, this time we have the same old hogwash I just mentioned, along with some muslim hogwash.

    Both claim that others are racists and prejudiced. One difference between the two groups is that islam does indeed have a book and followers that state quite often they want us infidels dead and they want the USA, and the whole world for that matter, under sharia law while the blacks do not as a whole.

    But that church Obama belongs to is indeed prejudiced too.

    One thing that is clear about Obama is his voting record – it just plain old sucks! He has an awful lot of NV (no votes). And he is rather… not on the bright side. I don’t know why his school records weren’t opened up like Bush’s were – but this guy isn’t the brightest blade in the drawer.

  5. says

    Regarding the very term, ‘American Muslim’, I’ve written an essay called ‘AMERICAN ISLAM?’ where I put into words why the term has always bugged me, with its suggestion that there are different kinds of Islam, that Islam is dynamic enough to be integrated into any culture, that there is such a thing as an Islam that is American in nature. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

  6. says

    They are insulted by our refusal to believe their every word.
    Does the name Yassir Arafat mean anything?
    In English told us that he wanted peace, in Arabic he spoke of annihilating the Jews.
    There have been many reports of the hatred spoken inside the mosques….but sugar won’t melt in the mouths of those who answer the press’ questions.
    Lying for the sake of allah.
    War is deceit.

  7. says

    BTW,
    We kuffaar can now read the life story of Mohammad, we can see how the “perfect man” treated those who he had in submission.
    I’ll bet the translations are a real thorn in the side of islam. Heh.

  8. says

    She’s not only a mis-reader but also a mis-writer, this Sheila Musaji. Apparently the word “bathetic” — in my lapidary phrase “bathetic bruise of piety” to describe the calluses of Zebibahstan — threw her for a loop, and sent her rushing to the dictionary. She’d better get a grip on her English if she expects to have an audience.

    It’s a good word, bathetic. From “bathos.” As in “bathyscape.” Or “bathysphere.”

    Oh, and since presidencies in posse and in esse are very much in the news, the word should be known now. A word to the wise in Washington: the perfect gift for the next President, on the occasion of the Inaugural, would surely be a nicely-bound-in-full-leather (by Sangorski and Sutcliffe) copy of “Peri Bathous.”

    That, or a scale-model of the S. S. Naufragium.

  9. says

    It is foolish Robert to accuse you of being anti Obama.

    This writer is one of the few anti Obama commenters on this thread and I was expunged a few times by JW and I’m not even synpathetic or a tool, witting or unwitting, of the Clintonistas.

    Besides being poorly reasoned and poorly read in history, B.Hussein Obama is a political disaster in the making and now he will likely come crashing down. And when Hillary does too, we can breath a further sigh of relief.

    Th American Muslim is likely an oxymoron until they come to terms with their hateful ideolgy in the koran the hadith and the sura.

    Until then there is only a muslim (if he can be taken at his word), wishing to be American.

  10. says

    The charge of ‘racist’ against Obama’s church is strong enough for Trinity to use damage control techniques on their website. They have posted videos of a white woman member extolling the virtues of the church and the pastor.
    I am sure that Pastor Wright is aware that many non members are visiting and reading the church site, watching rev Wright video’s on youtube, and googling names and connections, precisely to check up on Obama.
    I the racist overtones of Obama’s church are obvious, and so are Baracks Islamic connections.
    His associations with Farrakhan, his long term, friendly, involvement with a rock solid communist activist, and agent of the old Russian school, Frank Marshall Davis, his mentor, his solid friendship with the Kenyan rebel leader and Islamic jihadi, Odinga, who claims he is Obama’s cousin. His brother Albongo Roy, who is also a Kenyan rebel, and his entire African family is muslim, except for him. Do they not pressure him to convert (revert) to Islam?
    This is a ‘whole lot’ of baggage and it may be just the tip of the iceberg.
    Should he become president, I think the issue of apostasy will come up only if he crosses muslims.
    As long as he appeases them, and helps them further their causes they will love him. If not, they will remind him of his muslim connection to Allah, and demand he act appropriately, if not fatwa time…Only time and the unfolding events will tell the truth…

  11. says

    “The ever vigilant Robert Spencer accused him of being a Muslim apostate.”

    She says it like you’d think it is a bad thing to be a Muslim apostate!

    Go Muslim apostates, go! Is what I think. Hopefully this century will bring many more.

    I’m an Obama supporter and a huge fan of JihadWatch. I’m not one of the emtional rally Obama sorts, and what I’ve read about the process of becoming a volunteer (you focus on sharing how you came to him, rather than on policy) is way creepy, but I support him anyway.

    Why I support Obama:

    – I think his judgment is much better than Clinton’s and somewhat better than McCain’s. Example: the half-a-billion-$-a-day Iraq war. There seems to be a mind in there that actually does some analysis.

    – To that, he is more moderate on the social programs than Clinton. His position on gun control is more sensible and shows respect for the constitution, his position on the morgage issue was helped by a U. Chicago economist who made a point to work in that you don’t reward bad behavior (contra Clinton’s plan), and his health care proposal is less draconian.

    -No I don’t think that we can deal with all our enemies by talking, but at least talking doesn’t cost half a billion dollars a day in debt to China. I do think that if we faced actual, clear vital threats, he’d act militarily at least as well as McCain. If they aren’t clear (say if you have to understand the doctrine of the enemy to confront them) then neither would act well anyway, but at least the Obama’s military blunders are likely to be cheaper, and less damaging on the “hearts and minds” front.

    -None of the candidates, including McCain, is willing to apply US Military standard doctrine analysis (per Coughlin) to our enemies in the “war on terror”, so it isn’t like McCain gets bonus points on this front. (Give me a statment by McCain on the Coughlin firing to disprove me. If he is serious, he should have made one. This is a matter of infiltration into the DoD by a man with connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.)

    – I don’t think that whatever impression he got about Islam as a child is anywhere near as dangerous as the impression McCain and Clinton have of it after spending so long in Washington, center of Saudi largess. That’s a big deal to me, I think it is deeply unfair fret about Obama’s childhood experiences in Indonesia without comparing them to the sorts of connections to the big-money Saudis powerful people in Washington get.

    – I think he is somewhat more willing to consider novel approaches than either Clinton or McCain. His thinking seems less ruled by a drive for power or by insensate habit than the other two.

    -The Republicans need a reprimand after the absolutely dismal performance of Bush. They need an incentive to regroup around classic, small-government, fiscal conservative principles. They’ll never shake of the neoconservative influence otherwise, it will get ingrained if they win another term. Then we’ll have two big spending, internationally meddling, ideologically liberal parties, what fun. Obama, in his comments at the beginning of the Iraq war, appears to have been on of only a handfull Burkeans around at the time. That’s a plus.

    If it is Clinton v. McCain, I’m going for McCain. Clinton is not to be trusted, has no respect for the Constitution or for individual rights, is an old-school collectivist socialist, is mainly interesed in power, and would be in the pocket of the Saudis much more than McCain, probably more than even Bush.

    Another thing: I really dislike the spin that would blame people concerned about Jihad violence, and the doctrine behind it, with Obama’s downfall. I’m hearing it, and the American Muslim article sounds like it is hinting at it. It may account for a handful of people, but I don’t think it actually explains any significant trends.

    If you look at the exit poll data in Ohio, you see that but for people who say race was a factor, it was a tie. Excluding people over 65, Obama would have won.

    I haven’t checked the exit poll data, but on the basis of stats in news articles last night, if you look at Texas, without the Hispanic vote, Obama would have won.

    At the same time, many, many groups people in the Democratic election who are most likely to be moderates and possibly even republican leading — and thus quite possibly likely to agree with this site on terrorism issues, at least compared to the rest of Democratic primary voters — are independents, white men, moderate Republicans, people with a middle and upper-middle class income, people with a college degree. (Roughly remembered stats from the past election, take with salt : people with a college degree tend to be Republicans, people with less, or with a grad degree, tend to be Democrats.)

    So, the opposition on Obama’s race seems to — at least there’s some indication of it that would warrant further study — be coming from different people than those whose difference with him is on policy in the “war on terror”. Few people are questioning this, probably because of the propaganda value, to many on the left and in the Islamist camp, of conflating racism with concern about ideologically motivated violence. This question is a no-go area if you have those propaganda concerns

  12. says

    LOL. Barack Hussein Obama IS a Muslim apostate. This is no rumor, no conspiracy, no accusation. This is a cold, hard fact, documented clearly in Indonesian school records and attested to by several witnesses from his earliest school years.

    It is painfully obvious that Barack is attempting to cover-up this part of his life with a wide brush. I’m sorry, but when I’m in conversation and I mix up Osama and Obama while I’m talking, if that doesn’t alert us all to what a pack of idiots we are for even considering electing this man President of the United States during a time of war with Islamists, well, then we should wonder how we got to this point.

    We are being manipulated by the elites from all sides. It won’t matter if it’s Hillary, Barack or John McCain — in the end we will still end up the biggest losers in 2008. All these candidates are bad, I’m simply trying to keep the worst one out of the Oval Office!

  13. says

    Oxy: Oxygenated

    Moron: Idiot.

    Hmmm, that’s about right…
    Posted by: Doctor Bulldog

    You may have something there. Oxygen deprivation.
    I notice that both muslims and liberals hold their breath a lot. I think they forget to breath.
    They turn blue and some of them pass out. That’s what has been happening at Obama rallies. I call them the ‘Blue hues’.
    With muslims, holding your breath long enough guarantee’s a visit to Allah, with liberals, oxygen deprivation becomes another way to get high, and stay that way for long periods. Of course, no one suffering, or enjoying, oxygen deprivation should be making important decisions. A liberal who takes a deep breath becomes a conservative upon exhale.
    A muslim who takes one really deep breath, undoes Shahada and becomes an apostate. It is not common knowledge, but Allah hates oxygen, and wishes he had never invented it… :)

  14. says

    The mind has a primary purpose, which is to identify things.

    What is food, what is poison, where it’s safe to go, what is worthwhile and what is garbage, what is good and what is bad, which is my dog and which is my neighbor’s dog, etc …

    Most of us follow Aristotelian rules for operating our minds, whether we know it or not — observation and the rules of logic.

    People with weak and malformed minds have other, unreliable rules for making identifications.

    Like,
    – 2 things near each other are the same
    – 2 thing that share some random characteristic are the same
    – 2 thing that remind one of each other by association are the same
    – etc …

    ==========

    So by these feeble minded rules, RS used the words Obama and Apostate in the same sentence. So he must have “accused” him of being one. (Note the inherent assumption that apostasy is bad, something to be “accused” of).

    Then again, they could just be lying.

  15. says

    “This is a ‘whole lot’ of baggage and it may be just the tip of the iceberg.”

    Vince Foster is the tip of a much scarier iceberg.

    I’d rather have someone whose iceberg tip is a cousin he didn’t meet until adulthood, and a weird church on Chicago’s south side, than someone whose tip involves Vince Foster’s death.

    On the other end of things, so far as McCain goes, I suppose his role in skinking America a few trillion in debt to China compares to the fact that Obama has some shady friends?

    And surely McCain, in Washinton how long, doesn’t have any shady friends of his own? What about that man who likes to buy Jaguars so much that he’s done so for the wife of a government official, and who had to replace a rug right after a certain “suicide”?

    They all have shady friends. Some of them have deeper records of corruption than others. Some of them want to sink us more in debt to China than others.

  16. says

    “I’m an Obama supporter and a huge fan of JihadWatch. I’m not one of the emtional rally Obama sorts, and what I’ve read about the process of becoming a volunteer (you focus on sharing how you came to him, rather than on policy) is way creepy, but I support him anyway.”

    Posted by: hope_and_justice at March 5, 2008 11:26 AM

    I stopped reading just after that.

  17. says

    Regardless of the apostate issue, Obama is a Pelosi-style Democrat who, like her, seems to want to undo most of the Bush measures for national defense, such as the Patriot Act and wiretapping etc. (probably the only thing Bush got right). We need stronger measures than Bush implemented; Obama will likely do his best to make them weaker. Remember, Pelosi is the one who wants to protect Muslims from litigation by penalizing citizens who would report suspicious activities from people who turn out to be Muslims.

    See for details:

    http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/02/protect-america-act-obama.html

    http://wolfhowling.blogspot.com/2008/02/special-interests-obama-pelosi-and.html

  18. says

    Hopeandjustice:

    What cant !

    So you read, follow or monitor this thread ?

    I vote for you being a troll, a shill for the Hussein Obama Farrakhan crowd.

    Since you champion the dude, tell us of his muslim, Nation of Islam connections.

    Yes and tell us of how bright he is. In scholarship he is a clod. Without teleprompters he mouths stupidities.

    Tell us of the phone line there will be direct from our enemies into the White House should the American electorate lose their mind and elect him.

  19. says

    Is this true ?

    Reps of both Iran and Nth Korea have affirmed support for the Whamma Bama. It is.

    Does Michelle Obama have her first degree in Sociology ? Yup. Did she write her undergrad thesis on how prejudiced everybody is about blacks – all the while riding as an underachiever under affirmative action ? Yup.

    Did they choose their church for its ideology ? Yup. And what is that ideology ? Black entitlement and supremicism with ties to muslim entitlement and supremicism.

    C’mon lets have more hope and vote for the future.

  20. says

    awake,

    “I stopped reading just after that.”

    So my problem, as you see it, is that I admit the thing I’m supporting isn’t perfect? Or simply that I disagree with you?

    Even if you didn’t read it, if it is archived here that will at least demonstrate that the counter-jihad is not monolithic.

    dgene,

    “So you read, follow or monitor this thread ?”

    Um, I read the main post, and the comments that were up when I posted, though some of them I just skimmed. I scan jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch pretty regularly, usually once a day, along with CNN and yahoo news, to keep up on news. I only post some days. I only check most threads I post on again 5-10 minutes after posting. But not more than that usually, or it starts sucking up too much time.

    I’m not a Muslim or an operative if that’s what you’re trying to get at, or someone working for that magazine.

    “I vote for you being a troll, a shill for the Hussein Obama Farrakhan crowd.”

    So google the bulk of my posts and tell me if you think they were written by someone who actually believes what they’re saying or not. The moderators are welcome to email me at my email address, which is a real one as they can see if they look it up, to check me out.

    “Since you champion the dude, tell us of his muslim, Nation of Islam connections.”

    His father was a Muslim, born in Kenya, some articles call him an atheist, I’m not sure why. His extended family in Kenya is Muslim. His mom was like new agey hippie liberal in her beliefs. His dad left, his mom remarried an Indonesian Muslim. B. Hussein then went to live in Indonesia with his mom and stepdad, where he went to school at an Indonesian public school, had training in Islam, and was listed in the school records as a Muslim. People who knew him at the time report he went to mosque with his stepdad, something that wouldn’t happen if he wasn’t Muslim. This apparently continued until he was sent to Hawaii to go to an elite prep school, at which point he lived with his maternal grandparents.

    From high school until moving to Chicago after college, he seems to have been more of an agnostic, so far as I know. This would be in line with a genuine intellectual change away from Islam, coming with adulthood. You have evidence to the contrary, let me know.

    Nation of Islam – they’ve endorsed him, he renounced and denounced them, in public, on TV. That’s what I know.

    “Yes and tell us of how bright he is. In scholarship he is a clod. Without teleprompters he mouths stupidities.”

    He got through an elite prep school, and Columbia, and law school, and taught at U. Chicago Law where he got good reviews and conservative students tended to consider him pretty fair. He writes most of his own speeches. But, yes, grade inflation is a reality, so there is that.

    I like what he’s said about gun rights. I don’t like the socialistic programs, but he’s more moderate on them than most Democrats. I’ve actually never seen him give a speech for more than a minute or so, I don’t watch TV much, and I get my info via reading, so whatever emotional stuff is supposed to be involved in his speeches, I’m not getting it.

    I think that the reasons he gave against going to Iraq before we went to Iraq were wise and genuine. I think that, for a liberal, many of his policies show evidence of having at least listened to the other side – morgage and health care among them. I that he recognizes the right to bear arms is a constitutional, individual right. That’s a big part of why I think he’s smart.

    “Tell us of the phone line there will be direct from our enemies into the White House should the American electorate lose their mind and elect him.”

    Would that be the same phone line that got Bush apologizing for Islam and putting the study of the doctrine of our enemies out of bounds, or a different one?

    Seriously I think he has fewer connections to the Islamists than the Bushs and Clintons, and at worst no more than long-time Washintonian McCain probably has.

  21. says

    Robert, I know you are addressing this specific article and rag, but you know or should know that the lying goes way beyond this. Note the Autonomist’s blog I have linked to on this post and on others in the past.

    These people and culture, based upon the teaching of Islam is lying at it core. There is no truth in it. You can take that anyway you want and it is true. Whatever philosophy, religion (other than the subject), or none of the above or anything in between, readers here may hold. Islam’s deceit does not fail the test. It is see over and over again by those within it’s grasp. From the official exchanges between governments to the man on the street in Iraq . They lie out of habit, for gain, to protect, knowingly, in ignorance, with one another and always to the infidels.

    Please keep this in mind. I know it is hard to think in these terms but this is the enemy and his tactics. The sooner we understand this routinely the better we will be to deal with it. For those that find this hateful, the poor followers of this system are the most pathetic and blind and I feel sorry for them.

    At a spiritual level this perfectly reflects the source of this system.

    John 8:44
    For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.

    يوحنا 8:44
    انت لاطفال اباك الشيطان ، وتحب ان تفعل معصيه ما يفعله. وكان القاتل من بداية الدوام ويكره الحقيقة. ليس هناك في الحقيقة له. عندما تقع ، وهو يتسق مع شخصيته ؛ لأنه هو الكذاب والد الاكاذي

  22. says

    “Reps of both Iran and Nth Korea have affirmed support for the Whamma Bama. It is.”

    Look, I make my decisions on the basis of my understanding, not on the basis of the understandings of crazy dictators. If the crazy dictators think that Obama is in their interests, OK, that’s a lead, but it isn’t a decisive one unless their REASONS for thinking Obama is in their interests are valid reasons. Those reasons are the real issue, and not just who supports whom.

    “Does Michelle Obama have her first degree in Sociology ? Yup. Did she write her undergrad thesis on how prejudiced everybody is about blacks – all the while riding as an underachiever under affirmative action ? Yup.”

    Yeah, well, I don’t like Michelle Obama. That stupid comment about never being proud of America as an adult settled that. I don’t think she is identical to Barak, for all that they are married.

    “Did they choose their church for its ideology ? Yup. And what is that ideology ? Black entitlement and supremicism with ties to muslim entitlement and supremicism.”

    If you have links to articles (not video) about why they chose their church, I’d like to see them.

    My understanding is that Barak chose the church that was part of the community in which he was doing organizing, because it was part of that community. If the supremicism or a connection to Muslim entitlement were part of that choice, I’d like to know.

  23. says

    Doctor Bulldog provided a link to a story by Sheila Musaji, in which she says (by way of wagging her finger at Hugh):

    Actually, most of the zebihah’s that I have seen have been on the foreheads of Sufi’s and other pious and gentle souls.

    This is the entirety of her response to the assertion that Muslims who outwardly express their piety are not the only danger to kufirs. Those Muslim leaders, like Fethullah Gulen, who make quotes such as the following are no cause for concern:

    You must move in the arteries of the system, without anyone noticing your existence, until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria… like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete, and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it… You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey… Until that time, any step taken would be too early – like breaking an egg without waiting the full 40 days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all – in confidence… trusting your loyalty and sensitivity to secrecy. I know that when you leave here – [just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and feelings expressed here.

    Yes, those Muslims who carefully and consciously hide their true beliefs and desires until “the time is right”, are not a danger according to Ms. Musaji, because she knows Sufis who have a zebihah on their forehead.

    I admit I’m no Mensa member, and I admit to also having to look up many Hughisms in the well-fingered OED, but I am truly at a loss to understand the significance of her point. And it emphasizes Robert’s question in the title.

    BTW, how many lifeboats are there on the S.S. Naufragium, as the band continues to play that old hit song, “Huzzah! The Surge Is Working!” and as the passengers sun themselves on her creaking, groaning decks?

  24. says

    hope_and_justice,

    “No I don’t think that we can deal with all our enemies by talking, but at least talking doesn’t cost half a billion dollars a day in debt to China.”

    In the same eight year period we talked to Muslim extremists and began moving all of our commerce to China. All under Bill Clinton. Where did it get us?

    WTC attacked, soldiers attacked in their barracks, embassies blown up, a declaration of war against the US, a ship attacked in port and oodles of jobs moved to China.

    Talk isn’t cheap.

    As for Barack, what about his worldview? His church proudly states its members are African and are committed, first and always, to the mother continent. The members of that church don’t consider themselves Americans. My forebears gave up their ties to the motherland when they came to America. They stopped viewing themselves as Irish or German or Scotch. They were Americans. Will Barack be the president of the United States of America or the president of Africa? Where are HIS loyalties?

    Obama has the most liberal voting record of any senator, even more than Mrs. Clinton. I don’t see him doing anything meaningful about the war on terror. He’s too politically correct. He wants amnesty for all illegals. He wouldn’t accept any limits on immigration. The war on terror needs to be fought on that front as well and none of the candidates will do it. McCain is no better than either Clinton or Obama.

  25. says

    Those posters who believe that the answer to jihad is party politics, or who believe that Obama is the only candidate who should be explaining their position regarding Islam, are severely mistaken.

    I think questions to Obama about his family ties to Islam are valid. Would he, if required by current events, be able to identify the core beliefs of Islam as a main cause of many world conflicts? Could he take a stand against the religion of his step-father, and possibly his birth-father? That’s a valid question.

    But there are similar valid questions for Clinton and McCain. McCain says that we will be in Iraq for 100 years if he is elected. At 12 billion dollars a month, he may not be able to do the math, but we can.

    We should be focusing on educating all of the candidates, and more importantly, the media and the public, about Islamic beliefs and Islamic history.

  26. says

    Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser Samantha Powers advocates giving billions of dollars to the new state of “Palestine” by taking that money from Israel, she is clearly a typical anti-Israeli, pro “Palestine” ignoramus,

    yes, Change we can believe in, and the only thing we will have left, just some lose change.

  27. says

    “I admit I’m no Mensa member, and I admit to also having to look up many Hughisms in the well-fingered OED, but I am truly at a loss to understand the significance of her point. And it emphasizes Robert’s question in the title.”

    Well, I’m a lapsed Mensa member (the magazine wasn’t worth the dues), and I don’t think she has an actual point.

    She’s doing propaganistic posturing.

    They’ve built up this fiction that Islam is a religion of peace, and all opinions to the contrary are paranoia. All she is doing is asserting the fiction. She’s also framing it in terms of a personal observation instead of an outright assertion, so that it looks more objective.

    This sort of thing is part of a process of pushing debate away from reasoning, and toward intuiting on the basis of what is and is not socially mainstream, socially acceptable. Once that is what determines debate, social and political power further control what people think.

    There’s supposedly a comment Chomsky once made about Derrida, who he accuses obfuscation. The comment was something like, yes it is possible that he is just incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is suspicious of that possibility.

    This case is like that. More likely, there isn’t substance, but instead something else going on.

  28. says

    special_guest

    “I admit I’m no Mensa member, and I admit to also having to look up many Hughisms in the well-fingered OED, but I am truly at a loss to understand the significance of her point. And it emphasizes Robert’s question in the title.”

    Well, I’m a lapsed Mensa member (the magazine wasn’t worth the dues), and I don’t think she has an actual point.

    She’s doing propaganistic posturing.

    They’ve built up this fiction that Islam is a religion of peace, and all opinions to the contrary are paranoia. All she is doing is asserting the fiction. She’s also framing it in terms of a personal observation instead of an outright assertion, so that it looks more objective.

    This sort of thing is part of a process of pushing debate away from reasoning, and toward intuiting on the basis of what is and is not socially mainstream, socially acceptable. Once that is what determines debate, social and political power further control what people think.

    There’s supposedly a comment Chomsky once made about Derrida, who he accuses obfuscation. The comment was something like, yes it is possible that he is just incapable of understanding Derrida, but he is suspicious of that possibility.

    This case is like that. Most likely, you’re not missing anything: there isn’t substance, and instead something else going on.

  29. says

    Obama was born a Muslim. He lived the first 10 to 15 years of his life as a Muslim in a Muslim environment. He made several statements that confirm that he is still a Muslim, yet in this video he denies it, he says he NEVER WAS a Muslim.

    The NOI and just about all Muslim organizations around the world are ecstatic about him running for the presidency.

    No. This guy is bad news. Check it out:

    http://sheikyermami.com/2008/03/03/attacks-on-obama-highlight-racism-and-islamophobia/

  30. says

    Lets see, Obama is a member of a racist church with a pastor that is friends with Farrakhan who then indorses Barack and to top it off, Obamas foreign policy adviser supports “Palestine” and not Israel.

    Now Barack my not have personally made any anti-Semitic statements, but

    You tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are.

    Way to many anti-Semites that follow that guy around.

  31. says

    hope and justice:

    You are starting to sound like a Muslim practicing taqiyya to me. Are you sure you’re on the side of the western democracies? Because now I’m not.

    At the very least, you are a poor judge of character:

    “IF THINGS GET REALLY UGLY I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS”– “THE AUDACITY OF HOPE” by Barack Obama!

    Obama has openly stated he wishes to open broad dialogues with the Muslim world!! (Blecccch!!)Just what we all want….US policies aimed at ramming Islam down our throats. I personally don’t know anyone in America who wants increases ties with the Muslim world. I don’t even know anyone who is forgiving Islam for 9-11 either. America has no demonstrable power in the Muslim countries anyway, really. How much of our tax money would be wasted doing this??

    Obama has made public claims to be a Christian. But that he is one thing he is NOT, certainly. Christians do NOT publicly recite the Inshallah incantation to crowds of Muslims (which Obama did recently). FYI: Obama would be breaking the 10 Commandments by doing this as Yahweh and al-lah are 2 SEPARATE ENTITIES; Obama is now guilty of publicly putting a deity other than Yahweh before Yahweh himself (if he really IS a Christian; however if he really was one, wouldn’t he have known that doing this is a mortal sin under Christian doctrine???). Uttering Inshallah technically makes Obama a MUSLIM as only Muslims are permitted to recite it. Anyway, what Obama tells Americans is suspect–and being a Muslim (since he uttered Inshallah publicly he is NOW!!!) only worsens that ten fold.

    Obama’s political discussions have almost exclusively been pro-Islamic, pro-Palestinian,etc. what makes you think he would respond militarily against Islamic aggression based on that? Obama’s viess are frequently typical of Islamia: he’s anti-capitalism (he had Che Guevara posters hanging up on his office walls!), anti-US as a global power 9and would weaken the US economy with his proposed anti-global trade policies for America). It looks to me like this guy would undermine US power in a heartbeat and BLOCK American military responses to Islamic aggression.

    Why did recently Obama side with the Muslims in Kenya during the last political crisis there (other than the fact that his family there is Muslim–clue as to what his policies will be like).

    ATLAS SHRUGS follows Obama’s political moves closely. You may want to check that link out if you dion’t believe me.

    But maybe you knew all along Obama is a Muslim and are fooling JW???

  32. says

    sheik,

    I didn’t know Obama denied ever having been a Muslim, just that he denied being one, but I do believe you on this point.

    In light of that, I’m going to change my position somewhat.

    You say, “Obama was born a Muslim.”

    No one is born a Muslim, or a member of any other religion. To really be of the religion, you have to believe, no matter what legal paperwork says. There are, or should be, two sorts of being of a religion, the “on paper” variety, and the “in your heart” variety. What society calls one, and what one personally believes, can be different.

    I’ll grant that Obama was for a good part of his life an “on paper” Muslim. However, it is quite possible he was never an “in his heart” Muslim, and that that is what he bases his denial on.

    “He lived the first 10 to 15 years of his life as a Muslim in a Muslim environment. He made several statements that confirm that he is still a Muslim, yet in this video he denies it, he says he NEVER WAS a Muslim.”

    (1) Maybe I missed them on your link, but I did not see the statements that confirm he is still a Muslim. I would like to see those.

    (2) The fact that one lived in a Muslim environment, and even the fact that on paper and in the perceptions of others one was a Muslim, is not evidence that one was actually a Muslim.

    In Indonesia, for cultural and political reasons, the school system would have officially considered Obama a Muslim. As his father and step father were Muslim, for paperwork and official purposes Obama would have been considered a Muslim. He would have easily been able to tag along with his stepfather when the stepfather went to mosque, because of this; the society would have seen him as being Muslim. However, the free thinking Western standard for membership in a religion is personal belief.

    What suggests that his belief was otherwise is Obama’s mother. She was a strong influence, and an American influence, and according to Obama’s sister, she had religious ideas that involved a mix of liberal Christian-ish philosophy with Eastern mysticism, combined with agnosticism.

    Growing up in an environment like this, it is very possible that Obama saw himself as a freethinker experimenting with Islam the way his mother experimented with, say, Buddhism, but not truly Muslim.

    I don’t know. My main point is that it is possible that his statement that he never was a Muslim is true. He might see that time of his life as a time of experimentation, in contrast to the commitment he actually made to Christianity.

    It is possible.

    I’m not saying I like the situation, I’ll grant it is suspicious, but at the same time the identification of religion with one’s actual belief, as opposed to what is on one’s paperwork, is a very important principle. So far as suspicion goes, I’m suspicious of people who will grant Islam’s claims about what makes people Muslims (there’s a big hubub about religious identity and father’s religion and paperwork in the Egypt currently, if you didn’t notice, and to hold that the paperwork in Indonesia made Obama Muslim is sort of taking the more Islamic side), and so this situation isn’t decisive for me one way or another.

    Given the influence and nature of Obama’s mother on religion, I actually think the proposition that he sees his early years as a time of experimentation with Islam instead of a time of being Muslim, as most likely.

    Also, I think ALL the candidates are bad news, so I’ll admit it of Obama and it doesn’t change my mind. I’m looking for the least bad of a bad bunch.

  33. says

    Why is deceit a cardinal virtue among muslims? It is compulsory according to al-Misri’s “Reliance of the Traveller.” Their end – gathering up slaves for allah – justifies any means. You can trust a carpet humper as far as you can spit against a hurricane.

    PERMISSIBLE LYING
    r8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,“He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.” This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum added,
    “I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling
    disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A:in smoothing over differences),”
    This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Ghazali. If something is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it
    through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying
    is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable(A:to
    the owner)to cover the article’s cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to ;lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is religiously more precautionary (def:c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give misleadng impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def:r10.2)white the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances. `This is true of every expression connected with a legitimating desired end, whether one’s own or another’s. An example of a legitimating end of one’s own is when an oppressor intending to appropriate one’s property inquires about it, in which case one may deny it. Or if a ruler asks one about a wicked act one has committed that is solely between oneself and Allah Most High (N: i.e. it does not concern the rights of another), in which case one is entitled to disclaim it, such as by saying, ‘I did not commit fornication,’or’I did not drink.’ There are many well known hadiths in which those who admitted they deserved punishment were given prompting (A: by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)) to retract their confessions. An example of a legitimating desired end of another is when one is asked about another’s secret and one disacknowledges it. And so on. One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, on is entitled to lie, though if the reverse is true or if one does not know which entails more damage, them lying is unlawful. Whenever lying is permissible, if the factor which permits it is desired end of one’s own, it is recommended not to lie, but when the factor that permits it is the desired end of another, it is not lawful to infringe upon his rights. Strictness (A: as opposed to the above dispensations (rukhsa, def:c6.2)) is to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory.”

  34. says

    “So my problem, as you see it, is that I admit the thing I’m supporting isn’t perfect? Or simply that I disagree with you?”

    Posted by: hope_and_justice at March 5, 2008 1:30 PM

    Neither. None of the candidates are perfect, especially on the multitude of the important issues. That being said, your declaration that Obama is the best, coupled with being a big fan of JW, simply seems illogical to me.

    Other comments on this thread have alluded to his positional shortcomings; immigration, driver’s licenses, border security, votes on the Iranian republican guard; invade Pakistan, re-invade Iraq, huge tax increases, redistribution of wealth, associations through his church, his past…all of those issues disqualify him from serious contention in my estimation.

    I don’t see how anyone who is serious about the counter-jihad movement can endorse Obama as the best choice in this upcoming election, regardless if the fact that the movement is not monolithic, but the tone and substance of your rhetoric does have a familiar ring to it.

  35. says

    hope_and_justice

    One thing I notice about Obama supporters, they seem to care more about the way he makes them feel with little if any regard for his stance on the issues.

    I judge Obama not by his skin color, but by the content of his character and his policies or lack thereof and his complete lack of any qualifications for this first year senator who hasn’t done anything but run for President, he should be laughed out of town.

  36. says

    Hey hope:

    Still think you are a troll pushing the politics of grievance.

    Difficult to think of a mensa as being so stupid, so believew you are feigning on this as well.

    To claim surprise at to what is alleged is also foolish – what was said about B. Hussein Obama and his wife are public info available on the internet.

    Grievance grievance grievance. And to see how off the reservation the dude is – just go to his rally apeeches when he is not looking at the telelprompter.

    Last, the dude has followers, cult groupies,like Hopra and other stupids in the entertainment media who wrote stupid campaign songs for him.

    You qualify as his supporter because you moniker yourself as “hope” which is one of the empty inane meaningless vacuous placebo pronouncements of the big zero, and you also call yourself “justice” – are you seeking justice because you have been aggrieved – maybe the public has not recognized your genius – you are aggrieved and Barrack says that come the revolution, you will get your just desserts.
    Your time will come. It will be peaches and cream for you come the revolution that he claims will happen. Delutional.

    Get back to campaign HQ and figure out a better atrategy.

    Your rep is going down.

  37. says

    (trying to hire Hugh as my proofreader, but he might be too expensive even if he could stomach my views (lol))

  38. says

    Re “Obama”: all but a handful of western converts to islam, abandon their western names. Obama has made a conscious choice to sustain his muslim identity, even after he adopted Christianity.

    “Barack” (alternate spelling of “buraq”) is particularly repugnant because it is the name of the parrot headed horse that Muhammad claimed flew him to some portal, from where he was taken to heaven and hell, where he claims to have seen his parents (he said his father’s brain was “boiling.”)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

    However, relgious labels aren’t of paramount significance. The website of Obama’s Trinity United church informs of their “afrocentrist” agenda. Most African American scholars believe that blacks adopted both Islam and Christianity, syncretically, and that there is an inherent African core to whatever they believe. See download of a book that explains why “Martin” and “Malcolm X” are interchangeable terms for Afrocentrist blacks. Christian and Muslim identities are only tools to advance reparations claims.
    http://revelation-online.blogspot.com/2008/02/between-cross-and-crescent-christian.html

    In any case, the Black-Church has a supremacist and reparative agenda that belies Obama’s claims to universal humanity. Reparations means: racially dividing America into a blameworthy whites and redress claiming blacks. Obama is a tort litigator posing as a presidential candidate. Black-Church Agendists are chasing the biggest “ambulance” of all: private American wealth. And the wealth holders who will pay are guilty whites.
    We have already been charged, tried and convicted; all the Agendists need is to con us into self-arrest. An election ballot will be the handcuffs.

    Not proven? In Corpus Christi (Feb 22) Barack said of the border with Mexico, “a wall can’t solve the problem of illegal immigration.” Earlier he said that the “first thing” he would do as president, would be to hold a conference between the US and muslim leaders. Obama knows that a conferrence of that nature, would be a forum for raising fake grievance claims; reparations would be on the agenda. Buraq Hussain Obama believes that white Americans are theives: they stole black, hispanic and arab money. And the minorities want their Oprah-share

  39. says

    I am afraid Robert could be very wrong about Obama not being a moslem

    One forgets that Obama grew up in Java, the home of Wayang theatre where we see the shadows, but we never see the puppeteer. Where we are bombarded with illusions and pretences until we question whether reality is reality. Wayan reality is all the heroes in wayang are flawed.

    I think we should stop looking at the shadow and look at the puppeteer.

    Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:

    Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described thecall to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

    “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
    Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
    I witness that there is no god but Allah
    I witness that there is no god but Allah
    I witness that Muhammad is his prophet… ”

    THESE ARE THE WORDS FROM THE VERY MOUTH OF BARACK OBAMA

    And it is also The Shahada (declaration of faith) being the first pillar of faith in Islam according to the Sunni’s,which is the Islam of Indonesia

    This phrase, known as Shahada, is a simple creed but has very profound meaning, meanings that Obama is very much aware of,he has first hand knowledge.

    The shadow Wayan Obama maybe a committed Christian,but what about the puppeteer Obama.

    http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/03/moslems-surely-they-will-like-him.html

  40. says

    PMK:

    “”No I don’t think that we can deal with all our enemies by talking, but at least talking doesn’t cost half a billion dollars a day in debt to China.”

    In the same eight year period we talked to Muslim extremists and began moving all of our commerce to China. All under Bill Clinton. Where did it get us?

    WTC attacked, soldiers attacked in their barracks, embassies blown up, a declaration of war against the US, a ship attacked in port and oodles of jobs moved to China.”

    I didn’t like the Clinton years, I thought Clinton was a snake, and I readily accept that the Clinton era led to 9/11 and the rest of what you say.

    As for Barack, what about his worldview? His church proudly states its members are African and are committed, first and always, to the mother continent. The members of that church don’t consider themselves Americans. My forebears gave up their ties to the motherland when they came to America. They stopped viewing themselves as Irish or German or Scotch. They were Americans. Will Barack be the president of the United States of America or the president of Africa? Where are HIS loyalties?

    “Obama has the most liberal voting record of any senator, even more than Mrs. Clinton.”

    I’ve read that both Clinton and Obama have a moderate-democrat voting record, and that the ultra liberal stuff is spin. Gimme the link to an organization that tallies the votes to demonstrate he’s far left, or more left than Clinton.

    “I don’t see him doing anything meaningful about the war on terror. He’s too politically correct.”

    That’s true, and that’s bad, and I grant that, and that is the sort of thing that could change my mind.

    At the same time I think it has to be weighed against Clinton on the one hand, and the combo of refraining from reprimanding the Republicans for (1) putting doctrine of the enemy off limits, and (2) wasting trillions in Iraq, on the other.

    “He wants amnesty for all illegals. He wouldn’t accept any limits on immigration. The war on terror needs to be fought on that front as well and none of the candidates will do it. McCain is no better than either Clinton or Obama.”

    I agree. Immigration is important, and McCain is not to be trusted, so that issued doesn’t help differnetiate them.

    I’m not saying we have good choices. I’m saying, if I’m pressed to find least bad, it is Obama, then McCain, then Clinton.

    It is possible I could flip on the ordering of Obama and McCain. I sure as heck won’t if McCain and the Republicans aren’t heavily scrutinized, with their shortcomings admitted, and then argued as to why those are less bad than Obama’s.

    ————-

    pythagoras,

    “I will never vote Democratic again for a national election.”

    Why the heck are you so in love with the Republicans?! Does TRILLIONS in debt to China trying to give Moslems who can’t handle democracy, a democracy, public declarations that the doctrine of the enemy is off bounds for examination, “peace” talks in which the Israelis have to go through a different DOOR than the damned Arab officials who preside over violent people who never invented anything in their lives but bathe in OUR dollars because they have oil under their sand, mean NOTHING to you?

    This doesn’t piss you off in the least? Do you have any idea what the Republicans are doing?

    And what’s more, I consider it a HUGE insult that you consider me possibly a Muslim practicing taqqiya just because I disagree with you on the lesser of evils in a presidential contest. I think Islam is an evil religion, I think Muhammad was a murder, and a rapist, a horrible person, and I would literaly die before becoming a Muslim. I think the religion has robbed millions upon millions of not only their lives, but also of their cultures, and their possiblity to live as real reasoning human beings, creative and innovative and rational in God’s image. It is a horror worse than any brain-snatching alien sci fi horror one can think of. I mourn for the people lost to it, and I wish them recovery, but the religion itself seems to me extreme evil

    Your BS suspicion of me on the grounds that I, like a third of the country — including lots of independents and moderates for that matter, not all leftwing crazies — really pisses me off, combined as it is with the free pass you’re giving the Republicans that have ACTUALLY, over the years, been heavily involved with putting the doctrine of our enemies off limits for discussion.

    Go download Coughlin’s MA thesis. Republican Bush is complicit in this. Republicans bigwigs need a slap in the face to get back to reality.

    So far as the rest of your posts goes:

    “”IF THINGS GET REALLY UGLY I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS”– “THE AUDACITY OF HOPE” by Barack Obama!”

    Is that an actual quote? I haven’t read the book. Say it is and I stop at the bookstore for a peek this evening. PAge number would be helpful.

    “Obama has openly stated he wishes to open broad dialogues with the Muslim world!! (Blecccch!!)Just what we all want….US policies aimed at ramming Islam down our throats.”

    Has he detailed what the “broad dialogues” would consist of? My understanding is that he is talking about meetings with officials, not public propaganda.

    “Obama has made public claims to be a Christian. But that he is one thing he is NOT, certainly. Christians do NOT publicly recite the Inshallah incantation to crowds of Muslims (which Obama did recently).”

    If you mean the Shahadah, and you are serious, provide a link, and explain to me why it hasn’t been covered on JihadWatch so far as I’ve seen.

    “FYI: Obama would be breaking the 10 Commandments by doing this as Yahweh and al-lah are 2 SEPARATE ENTITIES; Obama is now guilty of publicly putting a deity other than Yahweh before Yahweh himself (if he really IS a Christian; however if he really was one, wouldn’t he have known that doing this is a mortal sin under Christian doctrine???). Uttering Inshallah technically makes Obama a MUSLIM as only Muslims are permitted to recite it.”

    Yes that is true, if he did it willingly, but how do you know he did this.

    And it isn’t the Inshallah! That means “Allah willing” and saying it doesn’t make you a Muslim.

    “Anyway, what Obama tells Americans is suspect–and being a Muslim (since he uttered Inshallah publicly he is NOW!!!) only worsens that ten fold.”

    If he said the Shahadah, if he said Inshallah, that doesn’t mean that, anymore than if he said ‘alhumdulillah’ or ‘ya illahi’.

    “Obama’s political discussions have almost exclusively been pro-Islamic, pro-Palestinian,etc. what makes you think he would respond militarily against Islamic aggression based on that?”

    I’ll admit I am suspicious of his past with the “Palestinian” issue. I am pro-Israel.

    This gets back to the issue of how pro-Israel the Republicans really are, though. I’m not convinced he’s worse than they are, and to convince me that he he is you’d have to engage with the idea that the Republicans have serious flaws.

    So far as how he would react to aggression : if it was clear aggression by a recognized terrorist group, I think he’d react to the immediate threat. Anything more complex than that, doctrine is involved, and the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans refuse to look at doctrine suggests they’re likely to get things wrong.

    At least if Obama gets them wrong, all we’ll have is lack of action, as opposed to misdirection action that will hurt us on account of lost taxpayer money.

    ” Obama’s viess are frequently typical of Islamia: he’s anti-capitalism (he had Che Guevara posters hanging up on his office walls!),”

    HE didn’t. One of his supporters running a volunteer office did. Yes, there are anti-capitalists supporting him, and their position is bad. I’ll grant that.

    “[…] anti-US as a global power 9and would weaken the US economy with his proposed anti-global trade policies for America). It looks to me like this guy would undermine US power in a heartbeat and BLOCK American military responses to Islamic aggression.”

    You know, global trade, when it involves trade deals rigged for the benefit of large corporations, and when it isn’t structured to penalize countries with poor human rights records, hurts America. The former is a variety of corporate welfare, the latter undercuts our capacity to maintain an economic base independent of such abuses.

    “Why did recently Obama side with the Muslims in Kenya during the last political crisis there (other than the fact that his family there is Muslim–clue as to what his policies will be like).”

    The situation is more complex than a Muslim side vs. a non-Muslims side, and so this example doesn’t show that’d Obama is more geared to side with Muslims than are other politicians.

    “ATLAS SHRUGS follows Obama’s political moves closely. You may want to check that link out if you dion’t believe me.”

    You didn’t give a link, but I know the site.

  41. says

    @hope_and_justice

    “…My understanding is that Barak chose the church that was part of the community in which he was doing organizing, because it was part of that community. If the supremicism or a connection to Muslim entitlement were part of that choice, I’d like to know.”

    So now that he’s had 20 YEARS to note the fact that his church is racist and supremist and yet still considers himself a member of said church, that makes you feel good about his judgement skills???

  42. says

    I’ve read that both Clinton and Obama have a moderate-democrat voting record.. ~ Posted above

    If you look at ontheissues.org, one will find from the voting record that both Hillary and Obama are Hard-Core liberals, not some kind of “moderates”.

    We won WW2 by eliminating our enemies, not saving money by playing paddy cakes with them, in Iraq x number of Islamic terrorist are being eliminated each and everyday, it cost a lot of money, but what is our freedom worth?

    Are we to get our freedom at WallMart for some discount price?

    Do we save now, only to pay a higher price later?

  43. says

    Champ,

    when the flag is raised and you hear the national anthem you stand to attention, put your hand and your heart and salute the flag.
    Obamma held his crotch.
    Besides, he is a liar when he says he ‘never was’ a Muslim.
    He was born a Muslim and lived his formative years in a Muslim environment and went to a madrassah. If that’s not a Muslim I don’t know what is.

    Besides, the racist black church he belongs to ‘welcomes Muslims’ whom they call members…

  44. says

    Sheik –

    Guess it’s safe to say that one of the “Changes” Obama hopes to make was demonstrated in that photo.

    Vote No!

  45. says

    hope and justice:

    Wow– are you naive or what? No wonder we’re all in so much trouble. Nonetheless,

    Obama is a Muslim. There is no two ways about it. He has demonstrated he knows zero about Christianity. So what HAS he been doing at his “Church”all these years if not studying Christianity like CHristians are supposed to at Church????? Using the place as a Muslim-in-hiding, that’s what (he’s using it as “proof” he’s a Christian–all the while maintaining cordial relations with Louis Farrakhan and his “Nation of Islam”).

    By the way Mr. Obama is PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HIS CAMPAIGN OFFICE DOES. The fact that he’s told us he didn’t solicit Ohio mosques for electioneering practices doesn’t mean dittly-squat; Obama is already known to be a pathological liar and certainly YOU wouldn’t have any way of knowing whether he was personally involved or not. BUT—there is no reason to believe he didn’t–BECAUSE no mosque is going to resort to illicit activities to elect a CHRISTIAN–they would risk plenty and gain nothing from a Muslim perspective (Muslims are not in America to attain the “good life” they’re here to Islamize the place–if Obama wasn’t their man for the job they would NEVER have responded to those solicitiations). It makes no sense that Obama’s campaigners would do something like this if he was an “unbeliever.” Obama is NOT off the hook on this one. Not at all.

    You are 100% WRONG about America’s reputation being hurt by international trade alliances. I don’t know wo’s been telling you what you spewed out here but—
    The United States does NOT seek and has not been seeking out trade deals with developing nations–it is the developing nations that seek out trade deals with America. NAFTA was lobbied for extensively by MEXICAN OFFICIALS during the early 1990s–not by US officials. You evidently are unaware that many Latin countries such as Colombia are now very upset with the US Democratic Party because the Dems have been politically blocking trade deals with them. The Democrats are wrong on just about every issue. If we cut off trade deals with the developing nations, the US GNP would shrink by nearly 30%. East Asia has grown wealthier largely due to trade with the US and so has India. Appreciation of the US has GROWN DRAMATICALLY due to the US’s role in international trade! (Don’t listen to the left-wingers on this one!!!).

    Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the US population. It is absurd that any US politician would waste as much time and energy on Islam that he is recommending we do.

  46. says

    “”Barack” (alternate spelling of “buraq”) is particularly repugnant because it is the name of the parrot headed horse that Muhammad claimed flew him to some portal”

    I think those are two different Arabic words:

    Barack/Baraq = blessing

    Buraq = donkey (specifically the magic flying donkey that Mohammed rode in the sky)

  47. says

    Posted by: pythagoras at March 5, 2008 10:34 PM

    pythagoras,

    Do not get upset, for in my estimation, the relatively “new poster” ‘hope_and_justice’ is not who he is attempting to portray himself as.

    He is not a rube, green, or wet behind the ears in any fashion. It is deliberate. You cannot teach the unteachable.

    I am going out on a limb here early, but my instincts tell me that ‘hope_and_justice’ has been here before, hijacking threads as usual with his regular tripe about being simultaneously a liberal Democrat and part of the anti-Jihad movement.

    This is just a hunch on my part at this point, but my gut has not betrayed me yet at JW to date.

    Think back, and listen.

  48. says

    awake: I believe you are onto something about H and J. I even mentioned to H and J I thought he was a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer…

    Could be!

    ps–I’m not that worked up about it. Smile!