Fitzgerald: A Little More On Obama, Islam, History, and "Getting On The Right Side Of History"

Robert Spencer's dissection of the Obama Ramadan greetings here was lucid and unrelenting, but I'd like to add some observations, stopping first to note the funniest phrase in what was, otherwise, necessarily - given the nature of the material to work with - unrelievedly bleak: "Obama then retails a few platitudes lifted straight out of a ninth-grade World Religions textbook."

There was, to begin with the end, the final stark stop-talking-nonsense put-up-or-shut-up challenge to Obama and his speechifying crew, that is the challenge that they provide supporting evidence, chapter and verse, local habitations and names, for this assertion:

"And here in the United States Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country."

This phrase is one more illustration of a larger problem: when it comes to Islam, Barack Obama apparently does not intend to abandon, bur rather to continue to employ, that Get-Me-Rewrite approach he used in his Cairo speech to the world's Muslims, possibly the falsest, least-true-to-history speech ever delivered by an American president. In trying to get or be, as he likes to say (with his handful of favorite phrases, this is certainly among them), "on the right side of history" (as if, you see, history has a pre-determined "right side" and we had all "better get on it" coute-que-coute or we will be judged accordingly), he, Barack Obama, is perfectly willing to rewrite history. That is, he is willing to rewrite history in the true, and not historical determinist sense -- that is, as the record of the past, as best as we can determine that record, and to make sense of it, to give the accumulated facts meaning. A little more undiluted Thucydides or Gibbon or Macaulay, and a little less watered-down historical materialism or castroesque ("history will absolve me") derivations thereof, might be nice.

There is no "right side of history." There are only fallible men, who should do what they can, learn what they can, prepare themselves as best they can through study of history, and observation of the men and events today, to better prepare themselves when they achieve high office, and presume, then -- as we too often presume they are ready to do so -- to be able to properly instruct and protect us.

No, Barack Obama must learn that his Get-Me-Rewrite approach to history, that is, what happened in the past, and his banal sense of "a right side of history" meaning History, meaning the fates, meaning the inexorable movement and development of peoples ever Upward and Onward (as the New Yorker used to put it), are inadequate to the task at hand. Obama appears to believe, ten years into what promises to be what I have frequently called here the Century of Sauve Qui Peut, that History majusculized, History in the future, is something already foreordained. And it is up to All Of Us to Get On Its Right Side, or else be condemned to "being on the wrong side," which is to say the dustbin, of - what else? - History, and also history.

Now do you want to entrust your destiny to someone who plays so fast and so loose with the history of your own country, in the service of what he sees as a higher goal, the Rodney-King goal of Why Can't We All Get Along? It is deemed necessary, in furtherance of that goal, to misrepresent or to lie about the Muslim "contribution" to the United States, or the supposed wonderfulness and tolerance of Muslims and Islam. This is done in the hopes of somehow winning them over. How well that has been working out, all over the world? It also manages to deceive Americans about their own reality so that they will not be properly equipped to deal with that reality. Obama and John Brennan, Special Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Terrorism, and so many others in this monumentally ignorant-and-confused-about Islam administration - though smug as all get out in its own certainties as to how to proceed -- are dangerous when it comes to Islam, and to the history of their own country. And that country, this self-proclaimed Citizen of the World may need to be reminded, is the United States.

And finally, in the article above, perhaps the most important theme for practical purposes is that of Islam as a vehicle of Arab supremacism. It is a theme which could be exploited in a hundred sundry ways, if the American government -- in this Administration or the next -- chose to halt the squandering of men, money, materiel, in Iraq (get out, and don't come back, and let the local games begin) and Afghanistan (get out, and only come back, from time to time, in the air, intermittently, leaving calling cards as the need arises). It could be exploited in an attempt to weaken the hold of Islam on the 80% of the world's Muslims who are non-Arab. Some of those non-Arabs are already well aware of how the Arabs, bringing the "gift of Islam," tried to impose a cultural and linguistic imperialism. Indeed, in Iran, where the disenchantment with Islam is widespread and growing, and the contempt for Arabs of long standing, the awareness of Arab indifference to, or even contempt for, the language, literature, history of Persia, and the national narrative includes, even emphasizes, the extra-literary feats of Persian poets, above all Firdowsi, who with his epic of the Persian kings, the Shahnameh, is believed to have helped Iran preserve the Persian language from Arab cultural imperialism. And there are others, too, intellectuals in Malaysia and Indonesia, who have occasionally written in anger about what they see as the makeover, by Muslims, of their own selves, to make them into little Arabs, with Arab names and Arab ways that so obviously come from the desire to conform to the dictates, that is in this case the Sunnah, of Islam.

The article above mocks, rightly, Obama's nonsense, and that whole business about "a faith known for great diversity and racial equality," which any Kurd knows to be false, as well as any Berber, or any black African Muslim in Darfur or Mali or Mauritania or for that matter in Egypt, or possibly those black African Muslims who were held as slaves in Saudi Arabia right up until 1962, when pressure from Western, non-Muslim nations, forced Saudi Arabia to formally give up slavery, thus "officially" freeing not a few, but hundreds of thousands of black slaves. Does Barack Obama know nothing about the greatest slave trade of all, the Arab slave trade in east and central Africa? Does he not know that it started centuries before, and ended -- only under the pressure of the Great Powers of Europe -- far more than a century later, and that the numbers of those taken away were far greater than in the Atlantic Slave Trade? Is he aware of the study, "The Hideous Trade," of the Arab slave trade mainly devoted to the seizure, by the Arabs, of young black boys who were then castrated in the bush, and then forced by slave coffle to march to the coasts, where they would be taken by dhow to Muscat and Oman, or other ports, and then on to the slave markets of Islam -- in Jeddah, in Cairo, in Damascus, in Istanbul? Does he know, or not know, that only 10% of those seized actually survived to arrive at those slave markets? Does he know that it was the Royal Navy (see J. B. Kelly, Britain and the Persian Gulf, 1795-1880) that suppressed the Arab slave trade, by interdicting it, though the Arabs did what they could to keep carrying on that trade? And of course they did not end the practice of slavery -- sanctioned by the practice of Muhammad himself, that Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil.

Barack Obama had an absentee father from Kenya who called himself a Muslim, but, given his time and place of origin, observed a version of Islam that was a hazy and easygoing affair, not the full, undiluted version, the truest one. The truest one is the one we find all over the Arab lands and, presently (but possibly not for long) in Iran, and in such places as have no other non-Islamic identity to cling or appeal to, as in Pakistan, or in some parts even of sub-Saharan Africa where the easygoing syncretists have been replaced, thanks to sums provided by the Saudis or by Colonel Qaddafy, or by the unyielding, intolerant, and deeply-hostile-to-Infidels, by the real Islam that for so long we did not understand.

Compare, for example, the practice of the Muslim Yorubas, and their attitude toward Christian Yorubas, in Nigeria, with the practice and attitudes of the Fulani and the Hausa. Or compare the mosques now in Niger with what were there, before the Saudi money arrived, even five or ten years ago. Or compare the Muslim population in formerly largely Christian Togo, a population now being given subventions by Khaddafy. He has been supplying electronic amplification for the Call to Prayer, and building mosques, and sending many of the Christian Togolese into quiet despair over the situation, as the present dictator of the country, Mr. Son of Former Dictator, runs his Libyan-supplied Lamborghini back and forth over the few dozen miles of paved road.

And Obama has met, even made sure were placed, in his Administration, a few young smiling American Muslims, with occasional walk-on parts for such examples of adult-onset Islam as Ingrid Mattson, or the well-pleased sincere pleasers such as young Master Rashad Hussain, who tried to rewrite a little history himself in attempting to efface mention of his own past statements from a magazine article, and only fessed up when he absolutely had to, when he knew he was caught. Now I don't know what emotional and mental desarroi lies behind the phenomenon of adult-onset Islam, and I suspect there is a long list of reasons, but I would not take Ingrid Mattson's version of Islam, the one she offers to students at the Hartford Seminary, as anything like what C. Snouck Hurgronje or Joseph Schacht or Arthur Jeffrey, or for that matter the Sheikh Al-Azhar, or Yusuf al-Qaradawi, or the Ayatollah Khomeini, or a half-million Muslim clerics all over the world, take it to mean. And I would be skeptical of the deep knowledge of Islam to be provided by Rashad Hussain, who according to reports was apparently genuinely shocked at his first encounter with Muslims abroad, as part of his new duties as the American envoy to the world's Muslims -- a roving commission indeed -- and particularly with their virulent hatred of Jews, based on Islamic texts. His surprise is telling, and if sincere, it reflects his naivete and his deep ignorance of Islam. But he is a Muslim of Indian descent who grew up in the United States, and apparently not in a community, or a society, suffused with Islam -- though his own family may be another matter. His Islam, then, may not be a guide to him as to how a billion other people take their Islam, and it is unclear, even though he proudly proclaims that he is a hafiz, if the text he spent so long memorizing in Arabic meant much to him, if he understood any of the Arabic, or if on his own he has actually found out the meaning of that text, has studied the Hadith, has carefully considered Muhammad and his words and acts, and his role as the Perfect Man, for all Muslims, for all time. I am willing to believe that he really was "shocked" -- and that tells you that he is not a guide to Islam, for Obama or even for himself. He does not know how to deal with those Muslims who, unlike himself, are not prepared to make compromises, are not prepared to take their Islam on the rocks, diluted by ignorance and the requirements of careerist self-interest which no doubt play a considerable role in the calculations of Rashad Hussain.

He is not the only court Muslim, either. In New York, at the Court of the Mayor, there have recently been the Raufs, Feisal Abdul and Daisy, who so cleverly courted the naïve (there are few so naïve as the very very rich) Mayor Bloomberg and his current public consort, deploying the usual weapons - soft voices, liquid brown eyes of great sincerity - and artfully hiding their deep of contempt for the Infidel. How this deeply impressed Mayor Bloomberg, with his own private demons from his youth, and memories of anti-Semitism. They played on that, encouraging his emotional - and intellectually confused - conflating of the victims of antisemitism in childhood Medford with today's leading carriers of antisemitism, who in Bloomberg's simpleminded understanding, should be seen as "the new Jews" who are themselves victims of a cruel and baseless "Islamophobia."

And the final source of Obama's knowledge about Islam, the one which he thinks entitles him to talk about it (I'm leaving out the smiling Arab diplomatic corps, with all those protestations about the "real Islam") is his childhood, or three years of it, in Jakarta, Indonesia. He attended a school there, but it was a most unrepresentative school, with plenty of foreign, Christian children along with the Muslims, which meant that those Muslim parents of those children were of the most secular and easygoing kind, and so too was the atmosphere in the school. And the school was in Jakarta, the most urban and urbane part of Indonesia outside of Hindu-peopled Bali. And Jakarta is in Indonesia, which not only has been far less ferociously pure in its Islam - but under Arab influence, Arab money, the dissemination through modern technology of the full message of Islam, that appears to be changing --- partly because the heritage of pre-Islamic civilizations, the Hindu and Buddhist monuments, and the pre-Islamic customs that are sweetly maintained, and even the music of gamelans that bespeak a refusal to enforce all of the prohibitions (including that on music) in Islam, as taken straight. And of course, almost all of us, including those who grew up in the Soviet Union and then grew to hate Communism - have fond memories of our childhood, as long as one or both parents were reasonably decent. Why should Barack Obama be any different? But it is up to him to realize that, and not to confuse happy childhood memories in a most unrepresentative only quasi-Muslim school, in a most unrepresentative Muslim city, in a most unrepresentative Muslim country (and at a time when secularism was at its height, and Islam most subdued), with the Islamic mainstream. It is up to Obama himself to read the texts of Islam, to spend a few days with the Jihad verses of the Qur'an, and to understand that Muslims take this seriously, that hundreds of millions of people take the Qur'an as the literal and uncreated and immutable Word of God. And it is up to Obama to read, over a few weeks, a few hundred Hadith, and to learn about the distinctions in levels of "authenticity." It is up to Obama to read 5.32 with, instead of without, 5.33, and to come to understand how Muslims interpret that verse 2.256 ("there is no compulsion in religion"), and not to rely on the smiling plausible people, or the confused and shallow machiavels, the john-brennans, who think we can misrepresent Islam to Muslims, and have them believe it, and misrepresent Islam to non-Muslims, and convince them that their history, their civilisation, and the Islamic threat to that history and that civilization, are not what the intelligent and well-prepared know them to be.

We've had it with Obama's lesson in American history, and we've had it with his lesson in Interfaith Healing Through Nonsense and Lies. We've had it. Not just the holy-rolling tea-partiers, as he and his wildest supporters may fondly believe, but many others, with their numbers swelling, refuse to participate in the farce and insist on learning at least as much about Islam as a billion other, not terribly literate, people have managed to do.

This has got to stop. Obama has got to do what Gabby Hayes once suggested: Come on in and set a spell. Set a spell, and set yourself to school about Islam. Your ignorance, your refusal to learn and to make policies on the basis of reality, is costing us trillions, and in both a figurative and a literal sense, is killing us.

It's Reading Period. Get cracking. Do all the work you didn't you during the regular term. Remember, soon enough it will be Exam Time. We'll let you know when.

And then you might be able to get not on the "Right Side of History," but -- a little more modestly -- on the right side of history. It's worth the old college try.

| 28 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

28 Comments

I'm sure he'll be able to find dozens of Saudi-funded self-loathing academics to support him: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-cultural-self-loathing-and.html

As I stated elsewhere, it's too late, Hugh - the Exam began January 20, 2009.

Even if this intellectually lazy empty-Alinskyite-suit began his studies in earnest today, this Johnny Come Lately will never get up to speed prior to the end of his term (be it 2012 or 2016). I don't need to tell you, of all people, that such a scholarly undertaking requires years and years of tedious research and reading, pouring over countless volumes of books, scriptural texts, essays, works of art, etc., etc. For all the valuable efforts of the Robert Spencers of this world who have done their best to shorten the neophyte's learning curve, there is no immediate gratification to be had here.

So, as Obama fakes his way through the second year of his exam, he is left to scribble vapid salutations and clueless ahistorical inventions in place of the correct answers.

Let's face it - Obama has already failed the Exam, and we shouldn't be surprised when given the opportunity to take it later, he will most assuredly fail again.

"Obama has already failed the Exam, and we shouldn't be surprised.."
No we shouldn't...
Obama's Mom (video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/08/obamas-momla-mere-dobama.html

The only CHANGE that i would like to see is for this LOUD MOUTH of Obama to SHUT UP.

"And here in the United States Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country."

Re-writing history and law:

He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws.
Daniel 7:25 NIV

Good article Hugh...


Mike...I agree that Rasool Obama has failed the test...Next, when does he get expelled?

point being : Obama's foreign policy is crap ...he has been gambling on his "lick your feet" policy ...his "bow down" islamic policy .....Why not for a "Change" he Stand UP...and say the TRUTH ...SPEAK the TRUTH ....i have personally lived with Muslims ....and i have seen them struggle against ISLAM ..........they are a confused people .......WHY because ....people like OBAMA are always round the corner ...to help propagate ISLAM.

Shame Shame

What you (Hugh Fitzgerald) have written above in tandem with what Robert Spencer has written should reach as many people as possible.

This is indeed very important. As supporters of mosque in Ground Zero keep telling Islam has always been a part of America. I heard even pakistanis say that. Just as they claim in high decibels they are the victims of terror & that they are assisting America in fighting terror.

I am afraid a lie if not debunked then & there starts parading as the truth.

( How do you manage to remember history in such breathtaking detail?)

Set to Mecca-time, indeed.

I am trying to imagine the Danish PM or Queen making such a speech. All quiet, please:

"And here in Denmark Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of Europe and that European Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country."

....
....

Nah. It would be a lie. We haven´t gone that far, yet. Mind, I do often hear worrying noises that are not far removed – immigrants, converts, correspondents with an agenda and some very left-of-center politicians – and history is slowly being rewritten.
Such as the idea that anti-Semitism is a European invention exported to the Muslim world only a few centuries ago, seen in the "Weekendavisen" weekly recently. I haven´t recovered from that one yet, and now this shocker. Oh my.

In the manner in which he abuses his own country, through falsifying it's history and siding with it's avowed enemies, Obama comes across similar to Indian leftists such as, let us say, Jyoti Basu or Arundhati Roy.

I have seen how much our country has been degraded by these commies and it is apparent that Obama is bringing down America's stature by the minute.

Sanjay

"There is no "right side of history."" But, in Islam there is. The wrong side of history is occuppied by the losers, those who reject allah, the prophet, the noble quran.

http://quranicteachings.co.uk/losers.htm

-- Those who violate Allah's ratified Covenant [, whereby they pledged to dedicate their lives and their wealth for the cause of Allah in return of a paradisiacal life (9:111, 9:75-76, 13:19-21, 16:91-92, 16:95, 6:152, 48:10)] (3:77, 7:102, 8:55-56, 13:25), and interrupt what Allah has ordained to be attained with it, and cause corruption [and disruption of balance, peace and order of the society and the world] [2:27]

Those to whom We have given the Book read and follow it as it ought to be read and followed. It is they who truly believe in it. And whoever does not believe in it this way - it is they, they who are the losers. (‘Tilawat’ = Recitation with understanding and then following it). [2:121]

And whoever desires a way of life other than the Submission (to the Commands of Allah), it shall not be taken from him with approval, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. [3:85]

O you who believe! if you obey those who disbelieve they will turn you back upon your heels (from the Way of Allah), so you will turn back losers. [3:149]

…whoever takes the Shaitan for a guardian rather than Allah he indeed shall suffer a manifest loss. [4:119]

… Anyone who rejects belief, all his work will go vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter. [5:5]

… Losers indeed are those who deny meeting with Allah, until the Hour suddenly comes upon them. Then they say, “We deeply regret wasting our lives in this world!” They will bear on their backs their burdens. What a miserable load! [6:31]

...etc, etc, etc.

Clearly, the 'wrong side of history' is that of the losers, the people of dar al-harb, the unbelievers in the land of war. Those "on the right side of history," as Obama puts it, are obviously not losers. Who are not losers? Those who believe in allah, the prophet, and the noble quran, those people of dar al-Islam, the land of peace (submission.)

I'm not saying Obama is muslim, but I do think he knows very well what he's saying and he understands how his words are interpreted by Islam.

"...opinions spread by people who are pious in nonsense..."

Excerpt from interview with Al-Azhar Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, when speaking of their efforts to counteract Misunderstanders of Islam.

If the shoe fits...the Prez should zip his lip.

Ramadan message given by the chief resident of the oval office . . .chock full of pure hogwash . . .begs the question - Is Obama fasting?

OT: Mohammed was no hunter.
'dating back to the 6th millennium B.C. nomadic tribes in Arabia have bred a hunting hound called the saluki. The slender, silky coated canine is known for its hardiness, stamina, intelligence, and speed. A fearless hunter of hare and gazelle, the dog is thought by historians to be the oldest breed in the world.'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0221_030221_EXPLsalukis.html
Phoenix the saluki.
http://anasazisalukis.com/.html
Mohammad "was a superstitious man and many of his superstitions became part of the religion that originated with him – Islam. One aspect in which this is manifest is in his attitude toward dogs. He made a number of irrational comments about dogs. His beliefs on dogs may have come from various sources such as cultural bias, pagan concepts, demonic influences, or perhaps from his own imagination. In any case they portray a man ascribing to superstition."
http://www.answering-christianity.com/dogs_rebuttal.htm
How could Obama think that a muslim call on a loudspeaker, that it's time to go to the mosque is a good way to spend the sunrise. Did he ever have a dog?

When Christendom finally fought back, the crusaders were met with hi-tech damascus steel.(sea shells??)
We're still in the age of hardened steel - transitioning to the the harder hitting stuff is slow going, but with mohammad we're in old hands.

I'm disconcerted that Hugh still thinks that more reading will wake up Obama, as though Obama were an empty vessel currently filled with easily drained useless and distracting liquid, to be replaced by the real stuff. If so, this would sorely underestimate the affective and intellectual power of the articles of Obama's sincere and determined belief: the Leftist paradigm.

It also underestimates the amazing and complex capacity which that paradigm (along with that of its more diluted progeny, PC MC) has for transmuting all incoming Islam-critical data and re-routing it in the brain into channels that relentlessly, with blithely ignored (if not sometimes fiercely defended) incoherency, wind up defending Islam.

Were Obama to take one night off from his bectic schedule to sit down by the fireside alone in a wing-chair with a copy of Joseph Schacht or Goitein or Hurgronje or Margoliouth or Lammens or Antoine Fattal or K. S. Lal, and actually read it with his intelligent comprehension skills, and sit and reflect on it afterwards in the wee hours of the morning sipping a glass of brandy as he watched the embers subsiding, I dare say he would not come away with what Hugh thinks he would, and what we all hope he would. For, Obama would not be reading and reflecting on any one of those studies of Islam as an open mind receiving data in the present: he would have the massive weight of a paradigm looming over his shoulders, a paradigm that not only seeks to "get on the right side of History", but has a History pre-fab and incontrovertible: if Schacht or any of those other writers argues something that goes against that "History", then there are ways to deal with that cognitive dissonance -- for example, to take one out of hundreds available from the paradigm, the writer was a "neo-Colonialist" "Orientalist".

You'd cleave a rough diamond with that essay Mr Fitzgerald, sir.

London Jim, Where is Mr. Fitzgerald remiss?

There is no "right side of history." There are only fallible men...

No, Barack Obama must learn that his Get-Me-Rewrite approach to history, that is, what happened in the past, and his banal sense of "a right side of history" meaning History, meaning the fates, meaning the inexorable movement and development of peoples...
...............

Yes—this rankled me, as well—with its disturbing sense of determinism.

This can either lead one to become distressingly lax about one's vigilance, assuming that "things will turn out for the best", or—far, far worse—to actively embrace the most appalling creeds—Fascism, Communism, Islam—whose adherents have all been convinced, and attempted to convince others—that their spread and dominance represented a fait accompli, which could not be resisted.

So—who fails to get "on the right side of history"? Presumably, those who cling to "their guns and religion"—even when what they cling to is neither of these, precisely.

Mike wrote:

Even if this intellectually lazy empty-Alinskyite-suit began his studies in earnest today, this Johnny Come Lately will never get up to speed prior to the end of his term (be it 2012 or 2016). I don't need to tell you, of all people, that such a scholarly undertaking requires years and years of tedious research and reading, pouring over countless volumes of books, scriptural texts, essays, works of art..
...............

Yes and no, Mike. I agree that a full and nuanced understanding of Islam—as of any subject—takes many years. But coming to a general sense of what Islam is *not difficult*.

After 9/11—wondering to what extent the Jihad terrorists were "hijackers" of their faith, and not just those airplanes—I read the Qur'an, the N.J. Dawood translation.

At the time, I knew *nothing* about the controversy of translations from Arabic—more importantly, I knew nothing about abrogation, and, while I knew Muslims considered the "Prophet" Muhammed a model, I doubt I had even heard of the Hadith and Sira.

I read the Qur'an in just a few days. I had thought there would be a few violent passages like Sura 9, but assumed much of the text would be benign or no worse than neutral.

Well, I was *appalled*. Even knowing nothing of abrogation—which just makes things worse—I could see that the violent passages—the passages calling for the murder and damnation of the unbelievers, far outweighed the less bellicose passages.

I fully understood that Jihad terrorists had doctrinal backing for their actions. My understanding of Islam has since deepened considerably, but this has only borne out my first impressions—not changed them in any significant manner.

Moreover, there are the lessons of history—no, not even the lessons of early Muslim expansion, or the Crusades, or the invasion of India, or the Muslim slave trade—*recent* history, suicide bombings and plane hijackings in the Middle East, the Achille Lauro, the first World Trade Center attack, Afghanistan under the Taliban, 9/11, the Madrid train bombings, the London Tube bombings—and not the stuff you find culling through obscure items in third world newspapers, Jihadist web sites, or Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, but just the really big stories that make it into the mainstream media.

Because the truth is that while it was 9/11 that finally got me moving, I was becoming more and more alarmed about Islam all the time well *before* 9/11.

Moreover, there are many—Rudy Giuliani comes to mind—who, while they have clearly not spent years studying the tenets of Islam, have a common-sense grasp of its threat. Now, someone who acts from common sense and instinct—without a full understanding of the fine points of the subject—is bound to make some mistakes.

But not as many mistakes—nor as willful—as someone who is an ideologue, and already assumes he is "on the right side of history"—even if he did spend his time in Koran class acting up and making faces, as Obama did.

After seven centuries of Islamic rule in Spain, slavery was reinvigorated in Europe when the Christians carried on that Islamic practise after the reconquista.
And here's a thought: The fanatical emphasis on belief versus unbelief, so central to Islamic theology, was seemingly evidently adopted by the Spanish Inquisition, where torture was routinely used to validate the purity of belief.
Then there's Sicily and the Mafia - after four centuries of Islamic rule - and the use of protection money in imitation of the jizya.
I'm sure there are other cases to consider, like the 381 years Greece was ruled by the Turks.
Islamic imperialism has been rampant in southern Sudan (read "What is the What" by Dave Eggers) with unbelievably cruel results for the blacks there, making Obama look like a sort of Uncle Ahmed idiot.

London Jim wrote:

You'd cleave a rough diamond with that essay Mr Fitzgerald, sir.

No Political Lemmings wrote:

London Jim, Where is Mr. Fitzgerald remiss?
................

NPL, I think you may have misunderstood London Jim's comment. To imply that you can cut a diamond with a thing is to imply that it is very sharp, indeed.

I believe that London Jim, far from criticizing Hugh, was paying him a large compliment.

Speaking of the "right side of 'History'," the philosopher Eric Voegelin, echoing Karl Lowith, reminded us that there is no meaning of history; there is only meaning in history.

"Remember, soon enough it will be Exam Time. We'll let you know when."

Fortunately, Hugh has already provided that exam in a JW posting from 2007:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/fitzgerald-final-exam.html

Time for Obama to start studying.

Thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up Gravenimage! I started doubting my own sanity there for a moment. . .compounded by the fact that I threw in my Geology decree course after year one and No Political Lemmings' comment sent me scrambling for the online dictionary and DeBeers !! LOL

typo: degree not decree DUH

An enjoyable read.

As I read the outrageous The End Of Nations Hubpages article I determined that Jihad Watch frequenters absolutely have to read this: http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Union-The-End-Of-Nations

Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

Site Meter