| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
There are many things to worry about Barack Obama in his view of the Middle East and in his view of Islam, including his being opposed to the war in Iraq for all the wrong, and none of the right, reasons, and his dreamy belief that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the war -- when if one understood things better one would recognize that there is no "central front" in the war of self-defense against the Jihad that is being conducted worldwide. The Jihad is being waged both against Infidel nation-states, and against regimes in Muslim countries deemed insufficiently Muslim, as well as against non-Muslims in Dar al-Islam -- to push them back into submission, as with the Copts in Egypt, or to push them out altogether, as with Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.
There are many worrisome things about Barack Obama and those upon whom he has relied for information in the past (Rashid Khalidi), and at least some of whom he relies on in the present. He has shown no great understanding -- none at all, in fact -- of Islam. Most of his new, more "acceptable" (because mainstream) advisers, such as some taken over from Clinton -- including the egregious Albright and Dennis Ross -- are limited. They are wedded to the formulas and understandings and nostrums of the past, the past that was devoid of an understanding of the meaning, and menace, of Islam, and of the various instruments and manifestations of the Jihad -- from the killings of non-Muslims in Thailand and the Philippines to the persecution even within already Muslim-ruled lands of Christians, Hindus, and others (see Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Sudan).
And that is not the only problem. As discussed here, Obama's view of Islam is based on childhood memories, and seen through the prism of that childhood. He attended a school that contained Muslim children from the most tolerant Muslim families (or else they would not have sent their children to school with Christians) in Indonesia forty years ago, at a time when the largely secular nationalists (Sukarno, Suharto) of the early post-war period were still in control. They are no longer, and many in Indonesia appear to be reverting to the full-bodied Islam. He has acquired a skewed view -- as skewed as the view acquired by Paul Wolfowitz when he was the naive American ambassador to Indonesia. Furthermore, Obama's Search For His Roots -- meaning his absentee father -- introduced him to Islam in Kenya, again mild-mannered: given the Christian majority, it has to be. And forty or fifty years ago, before the Saudi and other Arab money transformed so many mosques even in black Africa, an "Islamic identity" in Kenya might have meant something milder than what it means today.
This is a problem. Unlike the defectors from Islam -- Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq -- who have experienced the real and undiluted thing, Obama has not. Yet he thinks he knows something about it, and others presume that he does.
Obama may harbor the illusion -- he certainly gives that impression -- that the mixture as before will do. He thinks we need to "explain" ourselves better. We don't. We need to understand the meaning of Islam better, and work to identify the various means used to further Jihad -- Jihad being the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, everywhere. We need to exploit pre-existing fissures -- sectarian, ethnic, economic -- within the Camp of Islam and Jihad. We need to identify, and then undo, the main weapons of Jihad in the West -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest. We need to find a clever way to discuss this.
But Obama, like McCain, is still in this area one of Yesterday's Men. And unlike McCain, there are few signs that he senses the threat. McCain's problem is that he continues to misunderstand the nature of that threat from Islam, and so believes that a "victory" in Iraq -- that is, a stable, unified Iraq -- is better for us, for some reason, than an unstable source of permanent Sunni-Shi'a friction that would distract the jihadists away from attacking the West. And were an independent Kurdistan to come into existence, it would be a conceivable cynosure for non-Arab Muslim eyes of non-Arab Muslims throwing off the Arab yoke -- and thus would emphatically underline the Arab supremacism that accompanies Islam, and is a natural part of it.
Obama has surrounded himself with the old guard, the weary yet constantly hopeful and misguided peace-processers of the "Arab-Israeli dispute." In reality, the Jihad against Israel that has no end. There is no solution for it save that of deterrence, or of forcing the Arab side to invoke Darura, Necessity, the necessity of recognizing Israel's permanent military superiority -- or at least its ability to inflict such counter-damage as should end or dampen widespread Arab enthusiasm, so costly to the Arabs themselves, for attempts to undo the Infidel nation-state of Israel. Just look at the names: Dennis Ross, whose entire professional life has been spent ignoring Islam, ignoring the real nature of the war being made on Israel. He can't admit to that, can't admit he has missed the main point, and so he continues as before. His amour-proper is at stake. His reason for being is at risk.
And it is no different with Madeleine Albright or other Clinton inheritances. They all have failed to make Islam the center of their study. They have sturdily refused to consult the texts, the tenets, the history of Islam. They are willfully unable to connect the dots between what happens when Christian children are decapitated in Indonesia, Buddhist teachers and monks are killed in southern Thailand, two million Christians are killed in southern Sudan, Copts are persecuted in Egypt, Maronites are on the run in Lebanon, and Assyrians and Chaldeans (their Ba'athist -- therefore "secular" -- protector Saddam Hussein gone) are either being killed or threatened into fleeing Iraq. And then of course there are the bombs in London and Madrid, the killings and threats in Amsterdam, the hundreds and hundreds of plots uncovered, one after the other, all across Europe, and the ceaseless demands everywhere in the Infidel world by what are at this point already very aggressive Muslim groups and spokesmen. They are engaged in a simultaneous well-financed propaganda effort to convince some (George Bush is a believer) that Islam is a "religion of peace" or, at the very least, is no different from, is just like, "all other religions." And at the same time, they are pursuing a deadly strategy to everywhere remove obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, little by little by little, to force Infidels to accommodate Islam at every step -- and what's more, to become acclimated to this sudden new irruption of Islam into their lives, and to make them feel that there is something disreputable, something not quite right, even about inquiring into the nature of Islam, into the figure of Muhammad. In this way the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages in its own Believers is in turn being encouraged in Unbelievers by Muslims who are determined at all costs to defend Islam from free inquiry, and thus from possible critical analysis.
That is what is so worrisome about Obama. His naivete, combined with the conviction that he "knows" about Islam because of his experiences in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, or because he "knows" about his father, a nominal Muslim, in Kenya, or because he "knows" -- how could such a person not know? -- that Everyone Wants The Same Thing, All Religions Are Exactly Alike, and The Whole World Is Kin. These are Articles of Faith. They are remarkably like the Articles of Faith of Karen Hughes and George Bush. The main difference is that Bush and Hughes are also defenders of economic privilege. And Obama is a defender of other kinds, more specific kinds, of privilege -- including that enshrined in the immoral policy of affirmative action.
When it comes to Barack Obama, there is plenty to worry about.
Posted by Hugh at August 26, 2008 8:35 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
i'm sure that Obama with find away to talk to them,
maybe after he's implicated for sharia law.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 26, 2008 9:19 AM
"Nothing says change like a guy who's been in the Senate for 35 years." --Comedian David Letterman on Obama's choice of Biden
LOL.
So true. Hussein is such a hypocrite.
Posted by: darcy at August 26, 2008 9:34 AM
Dear Non-Endorsers-Of-McCain,
I have noticed quite a few articles attacking Obama-Biden's deficiencies in recent days, but very few attacking McCain. This is understandable given the recent VP announcement and the ongoing convention--but I hope you will give McCain the same treatment when media atention shifts to the Republican convention.
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at August 26, 2008 9:52 AM
Excuse me if this has been covered already, but I happened to see this story just now, although it is 5 months old:-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/barack_obama_would_let_shoaib.html
Knowing Hugh's interest in the case of the Pakistani free speech/ pro Israel campaigner Shoaib Choudhury, this refusal of Obama to support his cause looks like another reason to eschew the Barak bandwagon.
at August 26, 2008 10:28 AM
Choudhury is from Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), not Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan). I don't recall mentioning his case, though of course I am sympathetic to him. And it now occurs to me that Obama isn't the only one who could, by raising his voice or adding it to the chorus, help save Choudhury.
There is also John McCain, who adopted a child (presumably an orphan, and therefore quite possibly a child of murdered non-Muslims -- Muslim authorities in Bangladesh would never allow an Infidel to adopt a child they considered to be Muslim) from Bangladesh. Perhaps, through that factitious connection, he could be persuaded to intervene with Bangladeshi authorities, who might wish to grant the request of a powerful Infidel.
Neither candidate should be afraid to do this. And neither one can lose a thing, in this country, by intervening.
Posted by: Hugh at August 26, 2008 10:53 AM
Hugh,
Thanks for the correction, I should have said Bangladesh, not Pakistan.
If you check the archives here:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/013632.php
and scroll down to October 18th 2006 1.02 pm, you will be able to refresh your memory. As you say, then and now, such campaigning for the sake of freedom can only be good.
at August 26, 2008 11:14 AM
We need to identify, and then undo, the main weapons of Jihad in the West -- the Money Weapon
One of the best ways to undermine Islam would be to drill for oil in the US and crash oil prices. Imagine what $40 a barrel oil would do to the Islamic world and for the Western world. Of course like most dhimmicrats Barry opposes drilling in the US (except where there is no oil). The good news is that many Americans smell a rat in Barack Hussein Obama which is why he is not rising in the polls. BHO has tons of money and the dhimmi MSM in his pocket yet he's in a tie with elderly John McCain in what should be a dhimmicrat year. Rassmussen's poll out today shows BHO losing 3 points after the opening day of the dhimmicrat convention.What do you think will happen should BHO receive no bounce by the end of the convention?
Posted by: Roxane at August 26, 2008 11:42 AM
Re, Obama and Choudhury,
I admit I know little of this case, but even that little seems a big issue to me.
A few years ago it was a cause celebre (up to a point)and many here on JW and elsewhere took up the cause on behalf of Choudhury, a journalist in Bangladesh who, for the crime of speaking out for better relations with Jews and Christians, found himself on trial for his life.
Since then he has been in and out of prison, tortured and hounded. The story is still unfolding, with court appearences and threatening incidents, just this month. See for details:
http://www.freechoudhury.com/Shoaib.html
Perhaps he would be dead by now if not for the support of friends and politicians in the USA. Apparently the only one to refuse to give support was Obama.
See JW archives for more.
at August 26, 2008 12:39 PM
Obama's problem is that he's been raised as a veritable enemy of the west.
His mother was a communist who hated the U.S. his mentor in high school was a member of the communist party.
When he came to the states he made a beeline to people like Farrakhan and Wright and immersed himself in racist, anti-semitic Black liberation theology for over 20 years. Not to mention repudiating his white half.
Later he met the American terrorist Ayers who gave him entry into politics and then became friends with Rezko, Auchi and Khalidi.
He is also the only presidential candidate to win approval from Hamas, North Korea, and Iran.
Posted by: waltc at August 26, 2008 4:59 PM
Hugh said
...and [Obama's] dreamy belief that Afghanistan is the "central front" in the war -- when if one understood things better one would recognize that there is no "central front" in the war of self-defense against the Jihad that is being conducted worldwide
Of course that is true, but if I may be so bold, and so foolish, as to defend Obama's words:
If by that he meant to say that he understands that the Afghan people are NOT our good friends and strong allies, and are NOT deserving of our continued "reconstruction" (actually, construction) efforts, and that he Obama would focus the fight against the Sunnis in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they continue to plot their next attack against the kufirs, instead of in Iraq, where they continue to plot their next attack against the Saudis and the Kuwaitis, then his words would be correct too.
I said "if".
(This should NOT be taken as an endorsement of Obama or his policies on jihad)
Posted by: special_guest at August 26, 2008 5:05 PM
And at the same time, they are pursuing a deadly strategy to everywhere remove obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, little by little by little, to force Infidels to accommodate Islam at every step -- and what's more, to become acclimated to this sudden new irruption of Islam into their lives, and to make them feel that there is something disreputable, something not quite right, even about inquiring into the nature of Islam, into the figure of Muhammad.
In this way the habit of mental submission that Islam encourages in its own Believers is in turn being encouraged in Unbelievers by Muslims who are determined at all costs to defend Islam from free inquiry, and thus from possible critical analysis.
Albright, Bush, Condi, have been complete dupes for islam because like all atheists they do not believe in any form of religion except the religion of the self, and the immediate.
As such, they believe that the horrible tenets of islam can be "managed" by saying the right things at the right time.
After all they reason, if your head is not being sawed off right now with a dull knife, then you have so far managed successfully.
They presume that a continued string of such successful management practices will have cululative effects such as forcing islam to be a peaceful religion over time.
This is a deadly error in the reasoning process since it is like trying to manage a cobra by charming the damned thing with a flute.
Obama is more pernicious than even bush. As I see it, Obama is dumber than a sack of rocks to start with; but when you add to this the reality that he has never denounced his former islamic training, it translates into treachery.
BO may be dumber than a sack of stones, but gawd-almighty -- I really have to wonder about the person in the stree who would actually vote for this man.
As for McCain?
He stands for nothing; represents nothing; means nothing; but will say anything if he believes it will get him one inch closer to whatever he wants at any given moment.
Pity America -- because the potential "leadership" about to befall her is less than pathetic!
Posted by: witness at August 26, 2008 6:11 PM
As for McCain?
He stands for nothing; represents nothing; means nothing; but will say anything if he believes it will get him one inch closer to whatever he wants at any given moment.
Pity America -- because the potential "leadership" about to befall her is less than pathetic!
Posted by: witness at August 26, 2008 6:11 PM
I must disagree with you about McCain. I can't stand the man but he does "stand" for something, albeit nothing positive or beneficial to America. He loves illegal Mexican invaders and thinks they should all get amnesty. He is an open-borders advocate like Bush and wouldn't complain if half the population of Mexico relocated to America and went on welfare. His campaign reform debacle does not begin to address the entrenched corruption that permeates our electoral system in which candidates are literally bought by the biggest contributors. Tell me millions of dollars donated to a politician's campaign doesn't buy the donor anything!
Every candidate running for office should be allowed to raise or be allotted a specific amount of money for his campaign. People shouldn't be elected to office simply because they raised more money than the other guy and were able to advertise themselves more. The politicians never really fix the things that are broken in our system, they only exacerbate existing problems.
I don't know how Obama has fooled so many people but if he is elected, we are screwed. He is an internationalist and wants to give the UN more power and Biden is a long-time advocate of one-world government and the "New World Order". Obama wrote his autobiography 13 years ago and he did not make the first positive statement about white people, European culture, or America. He has deep connections with radical political activist groups, like ACORN, and his Marxist sympathies were cultivated when he was a teenager. His twenty year membership at Trinity speaks for itself. God help us if he is elected.
Posted by: Susanp at August 26, 2008 11:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)