In Human Events this morning I discuss how the latest annual report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) doesn't gibe with the Obama Administration's views of Islam and Muslim countries:
Has the latest annual report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) caused any cognitive dissonance in Washington?It should have: ten Muslim countries were among the 13 designated by the USCIRF last Thursday as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC): Eritrea, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Along with those, the worst violators of religious freedom around the world, six other Muslim countries were on the USCIRF's watch list: Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Somalia, Tajikistan and Turkey.
Now wait a minute. Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace and tolerance. Isn't that what Barack Obama has been telling us (and George Bush before him)? The report was a bracing dose of reality to dispel this rosy view--and yet another reminder of how Obama's view of Islam and Muslim countries is unrealistic and damaging, and of what it might take to end the jihad against America and the West.
As I show in detail in my book The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran, the behavior of these Muslim countries toward non-Muslims is entirely in line with the hatred and contempt that Islam inculcates for the unbeliever, "the most vile of created beings" (Koran 98:6), and the Koranic directive to Muslims to be "merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers" (48:29).
It's damaging because Obama's oft-repeated desire to establish a new relationship with the Islamic world based on "mutual respect" is apparently incompatible with any concern for the victims of this pandemic religious oppression. In this Obama is, unfortunately, again following in the footsteps of Bush, who famously proclaimed Islam a "religion of peace" in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The USCIRF report "also criticized the current and former U.S. administrations for doing little to make basic religious rights universal," according to the ANSAmed news service.
And so while official Washington pretends that Islam teaches peace and tolerance, a Pakistani Muslim last week reportedly called two Christian boys in his employ, Waqas and Zeeshan Masih, a derogatory term for Christian, and then beat them with an iron rod for missing a day of work. He killed Waqas, 14, and seriously injured Zeeshan, 12. Meanwhile, a 14-year-old Christian girl, Sumera Pervaiz, endured five days of torture after being falsely accused of stealing from the home of her employer, a Wing Commander in the Pakistani Air Force....
"Meanwhile, a 14-year-old Christian girl, Sumera Pervaiz, endured five days of torture after being falsely accused of stealing from the home of her employer, a Wing Commander in the Pakistani Air Force...."
And yet here in America we are putting a Navy SEAL on trial for punching a terrorist.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/03/navy.seal.trial/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
We need to bomb these f#@ks back to the book of Genesis.
Bush, who famously proclaimed Islam a "religion of peace"
'Famously' should be replaced with 'stupidly'...Of course he had to say that or no one would show up for the WH Ramadan dinner...
Rasool Obama may or may not be a Mahoundian in real life, but regardless, he is Islams strongest and best placed enabler.
I bet Allah likes him a lot...Even the most dedicated jihadi's have not been able to further Allah's causes in 1300 years, as much as Rasool has accomplished in one year...
And he intends to do more...
That list has 9 countries, not 10.
The most curious question that surfaces for me is why have our last 2 Presidents and many in their cabinets referred to Islam as a "religion of peace"?. Certainly our Presidents and those in their administrations are not stupid people. The most persistent reason has to be that they have to try and work with these countries within a diplomatic process and so they project a smile towards them even though they must know differently.
I always wonder what might happen if a President really told it like it is in no uncertain terms publicly when it comes to Islam.
As Robert Spencer points out and sees everyday how Islam behaves towards non Muslims and Muslim women as it applies to the teachings of the Quran and the hadiths,why do we not hear our leaders speaking out against the horrors of Islam and sharia?
WHAT DO YOU THINK???
Arabian oil.
There are very few politicians who have diesappointed me as much as Obama. I don't expect much of politicians anyway, but I thought that in a certain way when he was elected, he was beacon of hope, a very good orator, an intellectual... And what has he been doing since he came to power? Sucking up to Muslims, the most repressive ideologues in the world. Islam is not the religion of peace(TM), Mr. President, Islam is oppression, repression, suppression. Having lived in an Islamic country you should be aware of this.
Many Muslim countries that should be on the watch lists are not there. Is that PC and dhimmitude operating? For example, Yemen is not on the 2010 watch list. Has Yemen become a beacon of freedom in 2010? I don't think so. The 2010 Int'l Religious Freedom Report on Yemen is not out yet, it seems, so we'll have to wait on that. But just below I've excerpted parts of the 2009 International Religious Freedom Report on Yemen. As you can see if you click on the link and read the whole thing, there are some okay aspects about Yemen in the 2009 Report, but I've excerpted below only the parts of the report that reveal the dangers for non-Muslims:
YEMEN, 2009 International Religious Freedom Report
BHO is about the last person to ask to protect human rights: his aim is to reduce human rights, not to protect them.
Repeating US administrations have had a rather schizophrenic relationship with countries in the Middle East. And the reason is obvious, the Middle East is the oil producing region of the world.
As such it's of incredible importance to any US administration to maintain control and access.
That's why Obama can support the psycho's in Saudi Arabia while at the same time complaining about human rights violations in Iran who in comparison are rather free and open minded.
I think America's official stand is that countries like Saudi Arabia,Egypt and Jordan are so called "moderates" and countries like Iran and Syria are extremist.
Of course the only real difference between those countries is that some take orders from Washington and the others do not.
Previous US administrations have even supported radical Islamic groups of course the most famous example was the Reagan administration in the 80's supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to kill Soviet soldiers.The fruits of which brought about Al Qaida.
The cold hard truth is that repeating US administrations have considered Islam as a perfect tool by which to undermine nationalist movements in the Middle East.
Who would demand control of there oil resources.
Islamists might be bad but they are more forth coming in handing over there oil resources.
US support for Israel falls into the same category as a kind of regional policeman to occasionally crush the skulls of uppity Arabs.
The fall in support for Israel is mostly due to this. There are very few uppity Arabs left in the region who pose a serious threat to US interests.
Hence Israel becomes less important.
Of course BHO knows good and full well that Islam is not the religion of peace, and so did GWB.
I'm afraid that the one and only motivation here is to use propaganda to convince the American people that it's OK to give away the Promised Land to the Palestinians (in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy) to our own ultimate detriment. And to politically force Israel to go along with it.
For more on this, see "The Israel Omen" by David Brennan. You can read Amazon reviews of it here.
The book has a website here where you can buy it in downloadable form very cheaply. Definitely worth a read. You will never see Middle East policy the same again. Honestly, I couldn't put it down.
BTW Israel followed the same example as the USA.
They supported Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO.
Again using Islam to undermine nationalist movements.
To the powerful and the elites Islam is not seen as a threat.
But rather as a handy tool to undermine democracy and nationalism, which are the real threats.
It's why the elites in Europe rejoice at the prospect of Islamisation of the continent.
It would undermine social cohesion and democracy.
Making the population backward and more easy to control.
Heck it's not any different than the collective silence that can be found on most liberal and feminist blogs on the persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic states. If anything Obie is perfectly mirroring his liberal followers on this subject.
Looks like 9 Muslim majority countries in the 13, rest are China, Vietnam, Myanmar and North Korea.
There are several reasons why the last two presidents have referred to Islam as a religion of peace.
1. Vast ignorance of Islam's history and doctrines. Most of the American population, including presidents, knows little about Islam. This was especially true before 9/11, but remains true now. Instead of knowledge, there is the American widespread assumption that religion is in general good. Therefore Islam must be good, too. It must have been hijacked, people often think.
2. Fear that mobs of Americans, after 9/11, might scapegoat the innocent American Muslims that are law-abiding and don't support terror. American Muslims might face mass violence, and a mass movement for extreme measures like internment could arise and be out of control of the politicians. Meanwhile, very few have noticed that terror is only one part of the danger, and that many Muslims who don't support terror may well believe in Islamic supremacism and sharia law. Many don't, but many do.
3. Concern that 9/11 could spiral into a worldwide religious war between Christians and Muslims. If Americans took Islam itself as the problem, and responded accordingly, attacks on or internment of American Muslims could lead the Middle East might stop selling the West oil, economies could collapse, and everything spiral out of control into worldwide war. A very understandable conservative instinct for stability plays a part in the attitudes of both Republicans and Democrats.
I think those are some of the reasons why Islam has been referred to as a religion of peace, though, what with all the mockery of that nonsense, politicians have been doing it less than they did before, perhaps.
Tom D, I guess the guy has a huge amount of work on his plate right now. More even than usual.
Mackie, another reason presidents have referred to Islam as a religion of peace is that Muslims have claimed that's what it is. When Muslims claim that, there seem to be at least two possible motives for the claim.
1. There are the Muslims who know little about their own religion, because they have only recited the Qur'an in Arabic. According to Islam, the Qur'an only exists in Arabic. Translations are not the Qur'an. But 4/5 of Muslims are not Arabs and don't speak Arabic. And even modern Arabs, I gather, don't find the archaic Arabic of Muhammad's time very transparent. Thus many Muslims are rather uninformed and misinformed about the doctrines of their own religion. When these Muslims tell you Islam is a religion of peace, they do so apparently out of ignorance and shame over the terror done by Islam. Or they are not ashamed by the terror done by Islam. They are ashamed to be held up for opprobrium from large numbers of non-Muslims. These Muslims are to some extent in denial, to some extent deceiving us and themselves.
2. There are the Muslims who say Islam is a religion of peace in terms of Islamic doctrine. These Muslims won't tell you that their meaning of "peace" is very different from what a non-Muslim has in mind with that word. According to Islam, the world is divided into Dar-al-Harb (the land of war, the land that is not ruled by Muslims) and Dar-al-Islam (the land ruled by Islam, which is, according to Islamic doctrine, the land of peace). Muslims with that Islamic theology in mind believe that when every place is ruled by Islam, peace will reign. Until then though, Muslims, whenever they are strong enough, must make war on unbelievers in order to bring them under the rule of Islamic law. Unbelievers will usually not be directly forced to become Muslims, but they will be forced to become dhimmis to one extent or another. But the dhimmi status can be so degrading that it's tantamount to being forced to become Muslim, because the only way to escape being a dhimmi is to become a Muslim (or to emigrate out of Islamic territory if possible).
You ask a vexed question. Only politicians like Geert Wilders dare to point the finger to Islam itself. The most diplomatic effort politicians would ever be capable of would be that: "Islam is in part manifestly anti-democratic, against some essential democratic laws and values". AND around the world, now and in history many spiritual and worldly leaders have made clear very anti-democratic goals and done very anti-democratic actions or supported them." therefore followers of Islam/ Islamic leaders are potentially enemies and dangerous. And inclined to oppress our "faith-brethren" where Islam is powerful.
What a relief would that be if a Western government at least said that.
But it seem absolutely inthinkable, it seems to me. Because it would make it possible to make distinctions for security-reasons between Muslims and other-or no-faith-believers. It would lessen the now almost absolute right of freedom of religion. Howls of discrimination, racism would go up everywhere.
Smart politics here by Prez Obama. He knows he can get nothing but trouble from the Moslems, and that he'll get no such trouble from those of Infidel religions.
*** 92:8 ***
It's a bonus that, oh, somewhere around 100% of Moslem Americans will vote for him and his fellows in the Democratic Socialist Party.
And as a voting bloc they're growing in number every year!
Impeach your (false) president!
à tous les lecteurs francophones de JIHADWATCH je tenais à vous informer de trois sites utiles en français, le premier c'est www.avraidire.eu, qui entre autres propose des vidéos et des articles de Robert Spencer en français, et notamment de la série Bloguer le Coran, "blogging the QUR'an". Il y aussi www.bivouac-ID.com, très riche en info et le dernier, tout nouveau, c'est www.dieucafe.com, qui va faire l'effet d'une bombe dans la blogosphère. L'information disponible sur jihadwatch est extraordinaire, mais cela prendrait un temps fou de tout traduire. Les francophones ont désespérément besoin de savoir ce qui se passe, donc si vous êtes francophone et pouvez envoyer des articles en français vous pouvez les envoyer directement à schenmue@yahoo.fr et je pourrai les diffuser directement sur www.avraidire.eu
Nous avons déjà beaucoup de lecteurs mais pas assez de contributeurs, donc suivant le principe de JIHADWATCH, envoyez nous vos articles et ils seront diffusés.Merci à Robert Spencer qui fait un travail extraordinaire ainsi qu'à toute l'équipe de JIHADWATCH.
*********ROBERT SPENCER EN FRANçAIS************************
http://www.dieucafe.com/2010/05/02/ce-que-loccident-doit-savoir-sur-lislam/
I think that was a very restrained and polite piece RS penned above.
Considering the intensity of the subject, I think he pulled it off with real class and style.
think those are some of the reasons why Islam has been referred to as a religion of peace, though, what with all the mockery of that nonsense, politicians have been doing it less than they did before, perhaps.
Regardless of their passion for diversity/multiculturalism, the ruling class and their useful idiots in the media cannot be so blinded by idealism that they don't see the obvious, the obvious being that all muslims are potential mass murderers. Since islam is obviously not a religion of peace and muslims are responsible for 99.9% of today's terrorism, HOW CAN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT JUSTIFY CONTINUED MUSLIM IMMIGRATION?! Everyone in this country has had adequate time and ample empirical evidence to ascertain that there's something fishy about islam, political correctness be damned! They can play their diplomatic charades and kiss Saudi ass all they want but they have no right to endanger our lives by importing millions of muslim savages. Ignorance about islam is no longer a valid excuse. The government's job is to defend this country, not import our enemies by the millions!
Traeh, well written reasons for many politicians still alleging Islam is a religion of peace, you say it so much better than I. I copied your reasons for future use.
In Holland, where I live, twice now a maverick and much maligned and threathened politician had gained high popularity when identifying Islam as downright anti-Democratic. First Pim Fortuyn, then Geert Wilders.
And political success for them gives added awareness and pressure to both mainstream politicians and journalists.
The strange thing we now see is that the Islam-critics and the Jihadi's-Wahhabi's-Ayatollah's-Taliban so-called "extremists" seem to be the most knowledgeable about Islamic teachings and where they are anti-democratic. Anjem Choudary and Robert Spencer both agree that Islam is in favor of a Khalifate over Democracy!
But still many so-called moderate Muslims, in reality passive Muslims, are so arrogant as to tell the world in response to Jihad what Islam is and what Islam is not. What it prescribes and condones and what not. And mainstream journalists and politicians often parrot that ignorantly, for fear of strife and discrimination on account of religion, the reasons you pointed out. And perceived racism and discrimination is "sacrilegeous" in the extreme to them.
I recently explained this to a Turkish Muslim in the presence of PCMC Islam-ignorant professor of my organisation. I told them that in this time "peaceful" Muslims no longer have the certainty and right to claim they can explain Islam with any authority.
That knowledge about Islam and Muslims is now so vast both among the "extreme Muslims", who they claim are misunderstanders and among Islam-critics, ex-Muslims. That it often are the "extremists" that have studied the Holy texts night and day and are willing to die in Jihad who know and understand Islam best. And that the destination of the Islam-critics is that they will be near perfect in Islam-knowledge, unbeatable in debates about it.
Good for him the professor only briefly ignorantly stupidly tried to compare Islam with Christianity but he listened mostly. The Muslim told us stories about how good Muhammad was and how sure he was that his "peaceful" version of Islam was true. Well, anyway, we all stayed polite.