Back in January, at a press conference with David Cameron, Barack Obama delivered himself of some thoughts on how Europe should deal with its Muslim problem. He claimed that the United States had had “more success” than others in “integrating minorities,” and that “our biggest advantage, major, is that our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition.” This was neither the first nor the last time Obama has claimed that “we are doing things right” with integrating Muslims and the Europeans need to learn from us.
Obama’s optimistic certainty is a thing of wonder. For how does he know that “our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans”? Does a Pew poll suffice? Do we have reason to believe that Muslims, eager to dampen the suspicions of non-Muslims, and well-versed in taqiyya, might actually answer such a poll by providing the soothing answers they know are desired, and speak not what they feel, but what they think they ought to say? And does Obama think that the definition of “feeling oneself to be an American” is self-evident? Does someone’s merely living within a given geographic area, and attaining the citizenship associated with that geographic area – living in the United States, say, and acquiring American citizenship through naturalization or birth– mean that that someone feels himself “to be an American”? What does it mean to “be an American”? Would it not mean, in the most important and irreducible sense, that you subscribe to the Constitution, that document at the heart of our civil religion, which means to subscribe to a shared set of beliefs? And these beliefs would include the individual’s right to the freedom of speech and to the freedom of religion, and a belief that the legitimacy of any government depends on its reflecting, however imperfectly through elections, the will expressed by the people. Islam, on the other hand, insists on limiting the freedom of speech (if, for example, such speech is held to blaspheme Muhammad or otherwise call aspects of Islam into question) and the freedom of religion (punishing apostates even with death), and ascribing legitimacy to a government or ruler insofar as that government or ruler reflects the will expressed by Allah in the Qur’an, rather than—as in the American system — the will expressed by the people through elections.
Obama has yet to be asked, by some intrepid interviewer, to tell us exactly what his cavalier assertion that “our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans” means to him. Nor has he been asked, either, if he has read the Qur’an and familiarized himself with the Hadith, and if he detects any contradictions between those canonical texts and the Constitution of the United States. As far as I know, not once in all of the hundreds of interviews Obama has granted over the past seven years has anyone asked him that most important question: what do you know about Islamic doctrine, and how do you know it? Jeffrey Goldberg practically filled most of the latest issue of The Atlantic with his Obama interview, and there were plenty of questions about terrorism and ISIS and the Middle East, but he did not take the opportunity to ask Obama about his knowledge of Islam. He’s President; therefore he surely must know what he’s talking about; he’s got a small army of wonderful experts, led by the likes of Ben Rhodes and John Brennan, to fill him in by providing bullet-ridden executive summaries for every occasion; Islam and Obama go all the way back to the dreams of his father, and the melodious sound of the muezzin’s wail in Indonesia, so he must have a grasp of the subject; don’t dare to cross-question him; when it comes to Islam, it’s ipse-dixit all the way.
Obama officiously lectures the Europeans, telling them that we Americans do something right and they should learn from us about the “integration” of their Muslim population. But surely the most important difference is a matter of math — that the percentage of the population in this country that is Muslim is far smaller than in Europe. In the United States it is about 1%, while in Europe the percentage of the population that is Muslim ranges from 5% to 10%. Isn’t it worth finding out what, historically, has happened in Western countries as the percentage of the population that is Muslim increases? Might we end up concluding that “integration” becomes harder pari passu with the increase in the Muslim population, and that the putative American success in integrating Muslims has mostly to do with numbers?
Obama mentions the greater “success” in integrating Muslims in this country. Is he not referring to economic success? Aren’t the Muslim immigrants to the United States, in general, better educated and better off to begin with than those Muslims who manage to settle in Europe? It’s a lot harder, and much more expensive, to find one’s way from North Africa and the Middle East to the United States, than to be smuggled across the Mediterranean by boat into Europe. But economic success is not the same thing as ideological integration. There have been more than a few cases of very successful Muslims, seemingly completely assimilated, who “reverted” to the real Islam. Some may recall Mike Hawash, an Intel engineer earning $300,000 a year, who was as “assimilated” as all get out. And then one fine day he started to become more devout, grew a beard, and ended up trying to get to Afghanistan to give aid and comfort to the Taliban. And how successful is this supposed “integration” when more than half of the Muslim terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11/2001 have been committed by people born and raised in this country, such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Nidal Hasan?
Instead of lecturing the Europeans, one would wish for a President who is sympathetic to their plight, and keenly aware that were Europe to become irreversibly Islamized (here and there there are signs of a growing willingness to fight back – Belgian leaders sound different today from the way they sounded a month ago — but is it enough?), America could not go it, culturally and spiritually, alone. And Europeans, now possibly coming to their senses about the terrible situation they have brought upon themselves, do not need lectures from Obama on what they are doing wrong, and how they must do more to make their societies even more welcoming to Muslims.
Obama’s certainty about Muslim integration in this country mirrors his certainty about policies toward Muslims abroad. He had no doubts about what needed to be done in Syria, an extraordinarily complicated country; in 2011 he declared that “Assad would have to go,” and he repeated that mantra right up to the end of 2015. He declared that there were “red lines” that, if crossed by the Assad regime, would lead to automatic American intervention; those lines were continually crossed, and nothing happened. Assad is still in Damascus, and by now there are many who agree that his remaining in power offers the best hope for containing ISIS and protecting minorities, especially Christians. But the complexity of Syria’s situation was always beyond Obama’s certainties.
In Egypt, Obama was adamant that as part of the “Arab Spring” Mubarak should resign, and eventually he did, making way for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama was certain that our ally Mubarak was a superannuated despot, who deserved to be abandoned, while Morsi brought with him the possibility of a brave new democracy to Egypt, and Obama has never been one to worry overmuch about the Ikhwan. And when General Al-Sisi managed to replace Morsi, and go after the Brotherhood, it was despite, not in concert with, the disapproving Obama administration, that never seemed to quite understand what the Muslim Brotherhood was all about.
In Libya, Obama was also certain of how things would turn out — that once Qaddafi had been removed, Libya would emerge as a unified and democratic polity. Never mind that Libya had never been a democracy, and that the country itself was soon to dissolve, fissiparousness prevailing as power devolved to a myriad of militias, some defined geographically (Zintan, Misrata, Benghazi), others ideologically, including the forces of Ansar al-Sharia and, most recently, of the Islamic State, now dug in in Sirte. (Apparently no one in the Middle East has gotten Obama’s repeated message that the Islamic State is finished.)
Obama’s policy on Muslim matters — at home and abroad — has been a blend of certainty and sanctimony. One hopes that his replacement will at least forego those lectures that, with unhappy regularity, Obama keeps inflicting on our European allies. And possibly, just possibly, that next president will become a sudden scholar of Islam, and read a relevant book or two that Obama overlooked. You know the ones I have in mind.

Jay Boo says
It is all about the numbers.
Obama deserves no credit.
The more Muslims as a percentage of population as in certain European countries the worse they assimilate.
Obama is trying to (shift blame) from the Muslims to the Europeans being invaded.
Godwin says
Treason Exposed! Obama Used Benghazi Attack to Cover Up Arms Shipments to ;Muslim Brotherhood ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HuSyMbbXK4
Marcel Bérubé says
Plain statistics show that when there is 5 % muslim in an area , troubles start. When
there are 30 % -not 50 , they take the place. Violence compensate for the number. Native
flew, submit or die . Good luck , America.
Zeke Zick says
What Obola does not factor in, nor does many European leaders either, is that The West, is fighting a World War against Islam. One might even say that we have fighting this war almost since the Arab pedophile Mohammed (Curses and Wrath be upon him), received The Religion of Pieces from Satan himself 1500 years ago.
Men of The West, it is time to defend what is good, right, decent, and Godly!
TH says
Yes, this fight has been going on since the middle of the 7th century, and in the first centuries they took two thirds of Christian lands, such a Sryia, the Holy Land, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa, Spain and a good piece of France. Then came the cruzades, which checked them for a while. Later the Turks took Constantinople in 1453 and they proceeded to attack the whole of Eastern Europe, such as Greece, Hungary, Serbia, Albania, up to the gates of Vienna where they reached twice, in 1529 and 1683, where they were roundly defeated by the King of Poland. The only way to deal with them is overwhelming force, just as Israel does.
Angemon says
Unfortunately, this idea isn’t exclusive to Obama or Democrats – American Conservatives that should know better also think this way.
Charlie in NY says
It seems to me that a useful example of how to deal with and integrate a Muslim population would be Israel. Its IIsraeli Arab population is around 20%, a far larger percentage than in any European country. Surely there is something to be learned from its experience.
Nelson Taylor Sol says
For one thing, many Israeli Arabs are Christians as well. But Israel, despite having its own share of unique problems with the Muslim population, it’s officially a Jewish state wit a growing orthodox populatoon.
I don’t think Israel’s success can be properly analyzed without taking into consideration the effectiveness of its military and secret services. When it comes to fighting terrorism, this tiny country and its entire society (regardless of ideology) is decades ahead of Europe and even USA for that matter.
Paul says
I think the answer is simple–Israel is in the Middle East and its Arab population knows what is going on around them. Ask any Israeli Arab if they would prefer to live in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or so-called “Palestine”–I think the response is quite predictable.
wildjew says
They prefer to live under Israeli rule rather than under oppressive Palestinian Authority rule. But they (many) dream of the day Israel is destroyed nonetheless; replaced by an oppressive Islamic state because their hatred of the Jews exceeds their fear of Islamic oppression. My guess is this is the way many Muslims look at the West, even American Muslims. Americans haven’t lost confidence in their institutions (religious, cultural, political) as much as have the Europeans; though it looks to be coming. And then as Mr. Fitzgerald suggests, there is the numbers thing.
scherado says
One of the similarities between early-generation Muslims in US of A. and early-generation Italian and Irish during mid-and early 20th Century is keeping a tight reign on (short leash) the girls in their patriarch-centered families. This was always a losing proposition–think of Elvis and Chuck Berry to the death-knell with Billy Joel’s Virginia, 1977; And for the 21st Century Muslim in America, it is pure evil 24-7, 365 days per year, on most every channel, including commercials!
The thing about Muslims, is that the religion from which they derive their dos and don’ts–in it’s literal, strict interpretation–is a total rule-book for all of life, including the political. This was not exactly true of the Catholics, though there was fear that it was so and was the basis of discrimination against Catholics–most famously of JFK’s Catholicism.
What’s the solution? We can’t know that before we make a thorough examination of the patient.
While we wait for this–possibly into perpetuity–we can be, individually, responsible for what we say and do and ALLOW.
خَليفة says
You must be suspicious of anything Obama says.
It seems obvious to me that he has smoked a few too many joints.
Have you ever noticed that much of the time when he is speaking to foreign leaders, that he is speaking somewhat inappropriately – i.e. speaking of a domestic USA issue rather than one which relates to that country or improving US relations with that country ( as if he is speaking to Americans who disagree with him on that issue ) You know, how some kids will start telling the same “story / lie” to all their friends about how or why something happened, so that when their parents start asking around they will get the “right” version of the story from their friends?
I also think Obama wants to control the narrative on all sorts of things, especially things he’s worried about in his legacy, so when given a chance to speak to foreigners he likes to mention those concerns, even though they may be inappropriate at such a function. ( like how criminals return to the scene of a crime ) Did you notice in Cuba how Obama was defending Obamacare?
billybob says
All politicians do this – make speeches in foreign lands for domestic consumption. After all they have the attention of the press, so they take advantage of the opportunity. It is a fine art of the politician to speak out of both sides of their mouth at once – one side addressing the foreign government and people, and the other speaking to the folks back home. (Not to defend Obama, but there are no lack of real issues to criticize him for.)
خَليفة says
Point taken.
Western Canadian says
That a single American could vote for this traitor to humanity, after seeing even a single picture of him like the one heading this essay, is truly amazing. That picture, and numerous others just like it, manages to capture the ignorance, and the utter stench of ARROGANCE that is there is to this clown, moron, congenital liar and disgrace to his human ancestry.
He actually makes either of the Trudeaus look like honest, decent, compassionate and well educated people… which should be impossible.
Western Canadian says
“that is there is to this clown” should be ‘that is all there is to this clown’
William says
I wish Mr. Spencer wouldn’t post a photo of Obama, especially a close up, at the head of an article because it sickens me to have to look at his image. I know a picture is worth a thousand words, but I could be spared. Maybe there are other readers who still are not convinced of Obama’s maliciousness and narcissism and the photos would be important in getting them to see the real person. I could not imagine looking at him in person. He disgusts me so much. To read about him is bad enough, but that I can tolerate.
KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM says
“Shiny Pony” Trudeau will do more damage to Canada than Barry Soetoro has done to the USA; largely because Canada doesn’t have the equivalent of the American 2nd Amendment.
Examining the commonality between the two might help Canadians understand the potential for disaster, foqwad Trudeau, represents. In the course of the last several hundred years of Western civilization I cannot think of anybody, other than Soetoro, less qualified to “lead” a country of Canada’s historical stature.
Both morons mothers are/were mentally deranged. Both assclowns admit to significant drug abuse. Both halfwits cater to and indulge islam. Soetoro’s highest employment accomplishment was as a community organizer while Trudeau markets his part-time drama teacher status as sufficient qualification to run America’s most natural ally. Both twats can’t speak without intermittent “uhs”, “uhms”, “you know’s”, etc., and regular reliance on teleprompters and scripts. They both are articulately challenged. I could go on but it disturbs my equanimity to even think about either of them – oh did I mention they are both liars frauds and conmen?
Earlier today I saw an interview on CTV of the Canadian Federal Minister for Small Business, Bardish Chagger. It reminded me of the Bizzaro world of DC Superman comic days. The interviewer asked her a question, 4-5 times and she wouldn’t, or couldn’t answer him; just repeatedly responded with the same minimally related PC horse manure typical of Barry Soetoro’s press secretary Josh Earnest. I was literally screaming at the TV. I know teenagers better capable of a rational response. But then, given her boss, why would I be surprized?
I then googled the mutt and discovered she is 35 years old. The entire new Canadian Cabinet reminds of the attendants at a fraternity sleep over. At least America can see the end of the Obummer nightmare – Canada’s journey to perdition has just begun.
DFD says
To خَليفة: “…It seems obvious to me that he has smoked a few too many joints…”
I wonder from what book he has taken the pages from, to roll his joints in…. Also, he probably forgot to exhale.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
This essay intimates that the patriotism of American Muslims is uncertain. But there one American Muslim — an official of CAIR, no less — who is a staunch constitutionalist. For over five years he has been decrying that only “80 percent of the U.S. Constitution is compatible with Sharia”.
http://www.edmondsun.com/news/local_news/sharia-law-courts-likely-on-ballot/article_a9028340-24bd-5675-9b2a-9c62650e3cae.html
The incompatible 20 percent includes the Thirteenth Amendment (which bans possession by the right hand), the Fourteenth Amendment (which grants kafirs equal legal status with Muslims), and the Ninth Amendment (which grants the right to be worshiped to every American citizen, not just Allah, who doesn’t even have citizenship). This scholar, who is known affectionately as “Dr. 80” and who is profiled at
http://www.cairoklahoma.com/profile?id=5082d017b79921175300001c ,
is working to bring sharia and the Constitution into compliance with each other. He is a very busy man, too busy to answer emails, but perhaps he will be encouraged by notes of appreciation for his patriotic efforts to compile the intercompatibility statistics and publish them in the academic literature.
billybob says
“working to bring sharia and the Constitution into compliance with each other” sort of implies maybe a little adjustment to one here, and a little adjustment to the other there, but we all know there is no “adjusting” sharia. It will be the Constitution doing all the adjustment.
wildjew says
Great piece. Forwarded it….
billybob says
“The percentage of the population in this country that is Muslim is far smaller than in Europe. In the United States it is about 1%, while in Europe the percentage of the population that is Muslim ranges from 5% to 10%.”
Not only that, but the USA has about 38 times the land mass than the UK. These Muslims are spread out, whereas in England I imagine the majority live in Londonistan.
Don McKellar says
This is typical Obama:
– It is never the fault of moslems. (deflection / deception)
– It has nothing to do with Islam. (deception)
– It is the fault of other cultures. (deflection)
– The cultures he imagines at fault need to change to accommodate Islam better. (the Islamic agenda)
– The cultures he imagines at fault need to spend more money to accommodate Islam better. (the Islamic agenda)
– Moslems are a major contributor to American society. (deception)
– Lumps moslems in with all other minorities and makes a blanket statement about all for all about integration. (deflection / deception)
It’s painful watching this shadowy Islamic monster still shamelessly spewing his garbage propaganda.
Hope says
“Painful.” You’ve got that right. Every day it’s painful. I have my online ticker that counts the days till this “shadowy Islamic monster” and his angry wife vacate the White House. God help us all until then.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
,,, our biggest advantage, major, is that our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition.
— Prez Barack Hussein Obama
Prez Hussein ain’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But he’s apparently a Columbia Man, and definitely a Harvard Man, indeed a Harvard Law Tool Man, even a Harvard Law Review Editor Man.
But this genius compares a nascent Moslem population here with a maturing one in Europe. Brussels is about a quarter Moslem now. That means that the young fit adults needed by Belgian police and security forces are disproportionately Moslem.
Prez Hussein always answers easy questions based on ridiculous precepts. You didn’t build that bridge. Who goes around saying that they built the bridge? No one. Our Moslems are better. Who’s comparing a 1% Moslem population to a 25% population? Is that a good comparison that will yield correct conclusions?
Has Prez Hussein *ever* arrived at a correct conclusion?
Dan Jones says
They are not minorities… They are murderers… There fixed it for you obama…
More End Time News At:
http://www.shininginthedark.com/?page_id=6088
Edward says
Narcissistic type of guy…….opportunist because he knows that there’s only one sector of humanity that adores him 100% because he provides the path of those that want to destroy America. He cares less of what happens to those that have lived here before he was born! His legacy is what he cherishes the most.
An Intruder Proxy! He is not alone…for he is controlled externally. That’s what American’s must find out by WHOM!
Liberalism as a guess! (?)
Food for thought, Ephesians 6:12 “For it is not against human enemies that we have to struggle, but against the principalities and the ruling forces who are masters of the darkness in this world, the spirits of evil in the heavens.”
Godwin says
Judge Goes Nuclear On Obama: Why Do You Apologize To Muslims And Lie To Americans ………..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjwMzjVTctM
Florida Jim says
“United States had had “more success” than others in “integrating minorities,” and that “our biggest advantage, major, is that our Muslim populations feel themselves to be Americans and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition.” This was neither the first nor the last time Obama has claimed that “we are doing things right” with integrating Muslims and the Europeans need to learn from us.” The democrats have used the strategy of “give everyone what they demand and maybe they will vote for us and shoot us.All this has given us is endless Democratic hellholes populated by racists and race-baiters with their hands always out for more. Some strategy!
quotha raven says
Great article, Hugh Fitzgerald, and thanks for the new word – new to me, at least!
Definition of fissiparous
: tending to break up into parts : divisive
fis·sip·a·rous·ness noun
Cheers!
quotha raven
linnte says
I really don’t know what kind of bull Obama is speaking when he says our Muslims are integrated. Just TRY and pass out Christian tracts in Dearborn, Hamtramic or Flint Michigan’s Muslim communities. In about 60 seconds you’ll be ushered out of THAT neighborhood!
Custos Custodum says
Disagree respectfully. Obama is steeped in 1970s/1980s Western European-style Marxist concepts and rhetoric and to this day loves talking about “liberation movements” (i.e. Third World terrorist groups and their fashionable hangers-on).
Obama and Hillary WANTED to create chaos and civil war in Libya, quite likely in a conscious attempt to empower Muslim groups in general, and the Muslim Brotherhood from neighboring Egypt in particular. The fact that Libya became a convenient point of departure for smuggling African Muslims into Europe (as Gaddafi had warned) was an added benefit.
Professional war monger John McCain was also part of the cabal supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and IS (through its front groups) in Syria and Iraq.
Dick says
Must you stick multiple Latin and French words in every single article? You know other languages. Great, we get it.