Here is a terrific piece by Cliff May on Obama's new ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain. I share's May's concern that instead of standing up to this chief foe of freedom of speech in the world today, Hussain will kowtow. Why wouldn't he?
"Candor must counter Muslim half-truths," by Clifford D. May, March 25 (thanks to Twostellas):
Last month, President Barack Obama announced the appointment of Rashad Hussain as ambassador to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. By video, Obama told attendees at something called the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, that Hussain, 31, was not just "an accomplished lawyer and trusted member of my White House staff," but also a "hafiz" - a Muslim who has memorized the entire Koran.That reminded me: George Shultz, when he served as secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, would bring new ambassadors into his office where he kept a globe. "Show me the country you'll be representing," he would say. The diplomat would give the globe a spin, abruptly halting its motion to indicate Botswana, Bhutan, Brunei or whatever country he'd be calling home for the next few years. Shultz would shake his head. "No," he would say. "You'll be representing the United States of America. Try to remember that."
The Organization of the Islamic Conference is a powerful global entity that most Americans have never heard of. It claims a "membership of 57 states spread over four continents," making it the largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations - where, in recent years, it has arguably become the most powerful player.
The OIC's Web site is revealing. It includes a communique protesting Switzerland's ban of minarets, another on "Israeli Aggressions," a condemnation of the "reprint of the controversial drawing of the Prophet Muhammad by Swedish artist Lars Vilks . . . as reaction to an alleged plot to murder the cartoonist," and much on "Islamophobia."
There is not much on terrorism aside from a statement by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC's current secretary general, instructing that it "would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs, that its values and practices are not democratic; that it favors oppression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights." [...]
One might argue Hussain should be making a forceful case for such democratic values as freedom and human rights - including for women and non-Muslims.
That Hussain has memorized the Koran is impressive. It remains to be seen whether he is equally familiar with the U.S. Constitution. He'll be representing the United States of America. He should try to remember that.
it would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror...
*** 8:12 ***
I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and Mohammed.
How unfortunate.
... that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs...
*** 8:59 ***
The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.
How terribly unfortunate.
How much brain damage does memorizing the Koran cause? It would be better for you mentally to memorize Pi out to 100,000 places.
I observe that this excellent little op ed by Cliff May was published in the 'Boston Herald'.
One assumes the 'Boston Herald' appears in paper as well as online.
How big a newspaper is it?
Kudos to them for publishing this.
It is likely that Muslims may say nasty things to the paper's owners and editor, in response.
So the Islamosavvy must hasten to counter any Muslim threats and cries of 'Islamophobia', by writing to the owner/s, the editor, and Mr May himself, to express support. Also, (this piece of advice probably only applies for today) buy that issue of the paper which contains Mr May's wise words.
Anybody know what the Boston Herald's record is so far, as regards coverage of the World Jihad News and cases of Sharia Creep both national and international?
If this op ed by Cliff May is not the first or only time the Boston Herald has published some sensible truth-telling, perhaps Boston jihadwatchers should take out subscriptions (and tell the Herald why they are subscribing. Newspapermen want to sell their newspapers. If the Boston Herald editor discovers that telling the truth about Islam, Jihad and Sharia creep will - despite garnering threats and abuse from Muslims - *also* lead to an increase in sales of his paper, and a concomitant increase in revenue due to Islamosavvy businesspeople choosing to reward him by buying ad space in *his* paper and Islamosavvy members of the public deciding that they want to put their public notices (e.g. birth, marriage, funeral announcements) in *his* paper rather than in others - then telling the truth will be that much more attractive.
If Rashad Hussein has gone to the trouble, has put in the time, to memorize the Qur'an then he surely knows what the steve-gilchirsts and joan-crockatts and barack-obamas of this world do not know, and it is his duty to inform his higher-ups (who are also, and for that he is most grateful, his "hire-ups") of what that Qur'an inculcates, and not to gloss over, distract, hide, pretend it isn't there. And if he has not only read and re-read, but actually memorized, as he claims -- for that's what a "hafiz" is, someone who has memorized the Qur'an in its entirety -- then we assume he did not merely memorize the words without comprehending the language but somewhere along the line acquired a knowledge of classical Arabic, else his feat would have been as meaningless as memorizing the telephone book. And if he knows classical Arabic, then he knows the Qur'anic verses, such as 9.29 and 9.5, and he knows, too, how much stronger they are, how much more violent, in Arabic than in English or French, and he has a duty to convey that, too. Has he done so? What does he talk about when he talks about Islam-inculcated Hate? But of course he does no such thing because if he were to speak truthfully, not only about the contents of the Qur'an, but about the contents of the Hadith, and the Sira, then his bosses and colleagues, at the Office of the President's Counsel, would no doubt have wondered why he continued to call himself an ahderent of a Total Belief-System that inculcates such things, an inculcation that, to judge by what the day's news supplies as evidence, has had a great and lasting and unstoppable effect.
I don't suspect that Rashad Hussain knows Arabic the way a great philologist such as Christoph Luxenberg, who is also one of the world's most accomplished scholars of Aramaic, and thus has been able to argue, with greater and greater acceptance (just two weeks ago at a conference for the cognoscenti in Germany he offered new revelations, new discoveries), that the Ur-text of the Qur'an must be understood as originally written in Aramaic, and by keeping that in mind one can figure out the many knotty puzzlements that the Qur'anic text offers, for about 20% of that text is incomprehensible even to those who know classical Arabic.
But he surely knows it enough to make his way through Qur'an and the most authoritative collections of Hadith, and he has no excuse, none, to claim he "didn't know" what is contained in the texts.
Even though Rashad Hussian was found to have tried to destroy the evidence of his own previous remarks in support of Sami Al-Arian and his equally offensive remarks attacking the American government for its "attitudes" toward Muslims and Islam, an attempt that involved him,Rashad Hussain, contacting the Washington Near EastReport and asking that certain paragraphs be removed from a story, and then having the monthly, when it was contacted, act confused, act puzzled, deny anything had happened, and then when it turned out the original article had been preserved, it had to admit that yes, it had removed some paragraphs but because they were wrongly attributed by the reporter to Rashad Hussain, when they had actually been made by the daughter of Sami al-Arian, and then, when the reporter was located, and firmly denied she had misattributed anything, then, and only then, did Rashad Hsssain, knowing he could no longer deceive, decided to explain that yes, he had been the one involved in the cover-up, his very own one-man Hussain-gate.
The Obama Administration finds this apparently unobjectionable, and it has made clear it has no intention of withdrawing his assignment as envoy to the O.I.C., which is itself controversial -- why should the United States appoint a special envoy to the O.I.C.?
Apparently the Obama Administration doesn't wish to reconsider this appointment. Why? Would, after the Hussaingate revelation, this not be justified? Would such a reconsideraation be taken as a sign of weakness? Says who?
I find, and I hope you agree, this determination to ignore what Rashad Hussain did, incredible, unbelievable. He was at Yale -- he was not fourteen -- when he stoutly defended Sami al-Arian, an operative and supporter of Hamas now serving a 27-year sentence, and attacked the American government for the putative anti-Islamic hysteria that explained, in Rashad Hussain's view, such prosecutions. A few years later, he was attempting to get a job with the government. And it was now time, he realized, to try to cover with sand (italice: insabbiare) his tracks, to see if what he had been correctly quoted as saying could simply be eliminated from any source ttempt to destroy the on-line evidence of his defense, a few years ago, of Sami al-Arian, and of his, Hussain's, attack on the American government's "anti-Islamic" attitudes. He tried to distance himself when the attempted effacement of his paragraphs came to light, though it he himself who had called the Washington Near East Report, which at first dutifully tried to suggest that the writer of the original article had misattributed to Rashad Hussain remarks made by the daughter of Sami al-Arian. She, however, was unwilling to play ball, and stated firmly there had been no mistake; the words quoted were by Rashad Hussain. At that point, with every bit of evidence revealed, and every avenue of falsehood blocked, Rashad Hssain then admitted, finally and most reluctantly, to the truth. At that point he should have simply been fired. That was what needed to be done. But he was not fired. And his appointment as envoy to the O.I.C. was not cancelled. f
The Administration appears to believe that this matter is over. It's not over, and it should never be allowed to be over as long as Rashad Hussain continues to serve in this new, and quite unnecessary position, the envoy to a group that is defined by its faith, Islam, a sinister grouping withal, if you look at what it carries on its website and what it fails to carry. It is an instrument of the "Jihad of pen, speech" and is as dangerous, though not nearly as noticeable, as those who carry out acts of terrorism to obtain the same goals as are desired by the member Muslim states of the O.I.C. One instrument of Jihad is just as menacing to non-Muslims as another. There should be no pass given if the means chosen are sometimes "peaceful." It is the goal that counts.
Here's a suggestion.
Muslims have Qur'an reciting competitions.
What if, on an American university or high school campus somewhere, a group like ACT for America and the FDI were to stage a 'Reciting the Constitution' or 'Rediscovering the Constitution' event?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/usconst.asp
The whole thing is not anywhere near as long as the Qur'an, and far more coherent.
Certainly it doesn't have the hypnotic jingle of poetry; but if one reads it, slowly, with due attention to the phrasing and the momentous meaning, it is beautiful as the Brooklyn Bridge is beautiful.
I do not see that it would be impossible for an intelligent and motivated young person, perhaps with some guidance and encouragement from persons learned in law and history, to learn it by heart - not parrot-fashion, but with genuine interest, understanding and devotion. (The Preamble and the Bill of Rights would not be that difficult, to start with; an intelligent twelve-year-old could learn those, and - with guidance - get some idea of the implications).
Extra points could be given for being able to recite, in addition, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address.
And participants, having undertaken proper preparation, and made their presentations, could be asked 'comprehension' questions afterward, to make sure that they had *understood* what they had committed to memory.
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
One assumes the 'Boston Herald' appears in paper as well as online.
How big a newspaper is it?
...................
Circulation: 185,832 daily, 108,816 Sunday in 2007.
Boston is one of the few American cities that still has two newspapers—the larger Boston Globe has a circulation of about 350,000.
It's not quite the New York Times, with a daily circulation of just under a million. Of course, all newspapers are being hard hit right now—I'm sure the situation is the same in Australia. Still, the Boston Herald is quite an influential paper.
Here's more profoundly disturbing stuff on Rashid Hussain, from Front Page Magazine:
"Hussain’s view on the cause of terrorism is important to note as it will play a significant role in the Obama Administration’s outreach to the Muslim world. He quoted a study that concluded that “The primary cause of broad-based anger and anti-Americanism is not a clash of civilizations but the perceived effect of U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world.” In this statement, it appears that he believes that terrorism is the product of opposition to foreign policy, rather than the product of a politico-religious totalitarian ideology, which explains his opposition to terms like “Islamic terrorism.”
...................
It's all America's fault. How this explains the prevalence of Jihad terror in so many parts of the world "unsullied" by U.S. policy is unclear...
More:
One other important part of his paper is when he proposes that the U.S. build a Muslim coalition “not limited to those who advocate Western-style democracy, and avoid creating a dichotomy between freedom and Islamic society.” This would set the stage for a partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood. Rather than focusing on supporting elements that will genuinely argue that democracy is compatible with Islam, his standard for allies is that they just oppose terrorism and extremism. Apparently, those who pursue Sharia Law through other methods do not fit his version of “extremist.”
...................
Now, the point has been made here many times that pursuing a policy of "bringing democracy to the Muslim world" is a fool's errand–but that is not what Hussein is doing here. He is suggesting we *partner* with anti-democratic Muslim elements.
Partner—on what basis does freedom partner with tyranny? And to what end? More questions for Hussain.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/18/rashad-hussains-troubling-ties/