Sunday, November 07, 2010

Obama Takes the Muslim Brotherhood Line on Jihad

Obama in India

President Obama held a “town hall” event today at St. Xavier College in Mumbai as a part of his much-ballyhooed visit to India. After speaking for a while to the students, Mr. Obama took a few questions from the audience.

The first question took me by surprise — hadn’t the president’s staff screened his potential questioners carefully? And I thought at first that Mr. Obama must have been surprised by it, too. But as he slid smoothly into such an eloquently delivered response, it became apparent that he was quite prepared for the topic, and delivered a well-oiled spiel on jihad that could have been cribbed directly from Imam Rauf’s briefing book.

Here’s what the young lady asked Barack Hussein Obama, as recorded in the White House transcript:

Hi, good day, sir. Hi, my name is Anna and I’m from St. Davis College. My question to you is, what is your take on opinion about jihad, or jihadi? Whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?

Now let’s take a close look at President Obama’s answer, bearing in mind the lessons we have learned over the last few years about taqiyya as it is practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s agents planted in the West:

Well, the phrase [sic] jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.

This is always the first line of defense about jihad. There are many interpretations: it really means an “inner struggle”, and violent jihad is a fringe interpretation, etc., etc.

But this is not true. As Hans Jansen pointed out in his expert testimony at Geert Wilders’ trial, a consensus of the scholars — the Muslim legal experts and jurists who defined the precise meaning of Islamic legal terms a millennium ago — holds that jihad means waging war against the unbeliever until he converts, is killed, or accepts second-class status under the supremacy of Islam.

The only time when jihad means anything else is when fork-tongued dissemblers like Tariq Ramadan perpetrate their hoaxes on gullible Westerners.

Among Muslims themselves, “jihad” means “holy war”. Period.

But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions.

Heh. Doesn’t he sound just like George W. Bush?

And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.

Yes, this is true. But these four words have different meanings to Muslims than they do to other speakers of English:

  • Peace means “complete submission to Allah”. Those who submit live in the House of Submission, Dar al-Islam. Those who don’t submit live in Dar al-Harb — the House of War. This is codified in Islamic law, and it enjoys the consensus of the scholars.
  • Justice means “carrying out the tenets of Sharia law in their entirety”. This includes the stoning of adulterers, the chopping off of the hands of thieves, and the beating of recalcitrant wives. It’s in the Koran.
  • Fairness means “the equal treatment of all under Islamic law”. But “all” means “all Muslims”. Non-believers are not covered by fairness. Once again, the Koran is very explicit about excluding infidels from the benefits enjoyed by the faithful.
  • Tolerance means “the acceptance of all people, no matter what their race or nationality, who abide by the laws of Allah as handed down by his messenger”. Do you think that means tolerating Buddhists? Or lesbians? Think again.

Now the “extremists” appear:

I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.

Once again, this is precisely true: Islam forbids violence against innocent people. The trick here is the Islamic definition of the word “innocent”. No one can be considered innocent unless he has declared his submission to the law of Allah. Therefore non-Muslims are never “innocent”, and may be killed with impunity.

It’s in the Koran.

Notice also the “tiny minority” fallacy, which has been described previously in this space by both El Inglés and Pike Bishop.

Murderously violent people are always a tiny minority of any population. Among the world’s Muslims, even one-tenth of one percent is a huge number of people. Are we required to accept death at their hands because there are only a million of them?

And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts — whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or your [sic] don’t practice a religion — that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity… that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.

Who has a “distorted notion of religious war”? And what happens to “diverse religious beliefs” under an Islamic regime?

“Diversity” under those circumstances mean that Christians and Jews may be (at most) tolerated if they pay the tax and live as second-class citizens, recognizing the supremacy of Islam. But Hindus are considered vile idolaters, and will not be tolerated at all. If Sharia is followed strictly, they may choose conversion or death — those are their choices.

Surely there are some Hindus in India who are familiar with the historical evidence for this fact…?

And that’s a major challenge. It’s a major here in India, but it’s a challenge obviously around the world. And young people like yourselves can make a huge impact in reaffirming that you can be a stronger observer of your faith without putting somebody else down or visiting violence on somebody else.

Who visits violence on whom? Which religion habitually practices violence against all others?

And what is a peacefully-inclined young person to do if his faith or his atheism comes under violent attack from the forces of Islam?

Would President Obama prescribe “dialogue” to answer that “challenge”?

[…] And those circumstances — I think all of us have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is a way to mediate our differences.

All of “us” have to fundamentally reject violence. But what if some of “them” not only fail to reject violence, but embrace it joyfully?

And what happens if some of that violence is directed at us? Are we supposed to non-violently allow a tiny minority of misguided extremists to slit our throats?

Or will you, Barack Hussein Obama, step in and interpose your own body between those who would kill us and their intended victims?

16 comments:

Papa Whiskey said...

It is sickening to watch this creature prattle once more before foreign audiences, completely oblivious to the stunning personal rebuke he has just received at the hands of the American electorate. 2012 can't come fast enough.

Nick said...

As American President, Obama should have the balls to stand in front of the grieving relatives of the American soldiers murdered at Fort Hood, and explain to them about Islam being all nice and fuzzy and warm and harmless.

Van Grungy said...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslim-leaders-approve-Obamas-jihad-remarks-/articleshow/6885197.cms

NEW DELHI: Muslim activists and opinion-makers on Sunday widely approved of President Barack Obama's remarks on jihad without hiding their reservations about the US policy towards the current turomil in the Islamic world.

Oh... Notice the 'key' word in the article?

That means that Obama read from a script that was Shariah compliant so as to be understandable from a muslim point of view...

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/11/06/obamas-first-india-speech-extols-mumbai-cautious-on-terror/
"The murderers came to kill innocent civilians that day. But those of you here risked everything to save human lives."

A commentator on the Times Now channel didn’t like the way Mr. Obama referred to the terrorists. “He spoke as if the perpetrators of 26/11 were some unknown people,”

====

I love it when Imam Obama uses Muslim Brotherhood codewords... You know he's angling for that top UN position after he flees the US for good...

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Obama+wants+India+Pakistan+along/3791650/story.html#ixzz14hmdZiz1

==========

I came to the same conclusion... This was a victory tour...

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.
end quote.

Presumption, in my religion, is a sin.
And when it concerns the life and death of people generally, it's a mortal sin.
I would curse this pretender, but since he is already 9/10ths of the way to hell already, what's the use?

Profitsbeard said...

If there had been 1.4 billion Nazis or Japanese Imperialists or Italian fascists during WW II would we have NOT fought them?

What does numbers have to do with anything?

That so many are deluded or intimidated into the deathcult of Islam (You try to leave, they try to kill you) says nothing about what our moral and intellectual and military response to this dismal sect should be.

Obama is a blithering, craven fool.

Call Me Mom said...

I generally cannot watch Mr. Obama's speeches because they exceed my 3 lie/political speech limit within seconds. (As my grandparents would say-"he lies as fast as he talks")

LAW Wells said...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and play a bit of devil's advocate. Christianity also declares itself as involved in holy war, just like Islam. Best we be honest about that.

But again, there is a difference in meaning. Whereas in Christianity, the holy war is against sin and the devil, and is fundamentally fought within, in Islam, the war against sin means a war against those who do not believe, and thus is fought without. As Noni Darwish put it in her book Cruel and Usual Punishment, the Muslim imams say "They are sinners" while Christian priests say "We all are sinners".

But the length by which they measure will be measured out to them. And Profitsbeard is right - numbers don't mean something is any more right. A stand of principle is often hard because it means standing against the mainstream. Or perhaps more accurately, what appears to be the mainstream.

Palio said...

The Prophet came back from one of his campaigns saying: "You have come forth in the best way of coming forth: you have come from the smaller jihad to the geater jihad." They said: "And what is the greater jihad?" He replied: "The striving (mujahadat) of Allah's servants against their idle desires."

Also,calling people to Islam and making them acquainted with it in all its aspects through dialogue and kind persuasion is the first type of Jihad in Islam, in contrast to the imagined belief that Jihad is only of the combative form. This is referred to in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) says, "so obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavor with it (the Qur’an)" [25:52]. Here the word "strive" , is used to mean struggle by means of the tongue—preaching and exhortation—and to persevere despite the obstinate resistance of some unbelievers to the beliefs and ideals of Islam...So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah). The question often asked is whether Islam condones and teaches the forced and armed conversion of non-Muslims. This is the image sometimes projected by Western scholars and as any Muslim scholar will tell you, is seriously flawed. The Qur’an clearly states "There is no compulsion in religion, the path of guidance stands out clear from error" [2:256] and [60:8]. In this verse, the word "rushd" or "path of guidance" refers to the entire domain of human life, not just to the rites and theology of Islam.

You can check sources yourself, people generally misunderstand Islam, and stop saying bad of things you even don't know.. what is that??
If you wanna know something go to its source. And the source of islam is the Quran and the authentified prophet's sayings.
May Allah guide us to the straigh path.

Zenster said...

All of “us” have to fundamentally reject violence. But what if some of “them” not only fail to reject violence, but embrace it joyfully?

Then kill them. If they "embrace it joyfully", make it their last embrace. And keep on doing this until they genuinely renounce their embrace of violence or until there are no more to embrace it. Period.

Imperial Japan had the exact same infatuation with violence and honor. A few nuclear weapons made clear that any persistence in warmaking would prove fatal to their entire culture and way of life.

The same clarity of thought must be brought to Islam. Absolutely nothing else will suffice.

It would be best to begin at the top and slowly unravel jihad from its aristocratic linch pins on down. However, by allowing Islam to go relatively unchallenged, spineless rat bastards like Obama have literally assured that needless millions of Muslims will enjoy their own private holocaust just as the Qur'an wants them to.

Profitsbeard: That so many are deluded or intimidated … [by] … Islam … says nothing about what our moral and intellectual and military response to this dismal sect should be.

Precisely. Regardless of however fair or unfair its own internal machinations may be, Islam must still be paid in its own bloody coin. It is the only currency it accepts and, therefore, the only tender we should proffer.

Palio: Also,calling people to Islam and making them acquainted with it in all its aspects through dialogue and kind persuasion is the first type of Jihad in Islam, in contrast to the imagined belief that Jihad is only of the combative form. This is referred to in the Qur’an where Allah (swt) says, "so obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavor with it (the Qur’an)" [25:52]. Here the word "strive" , is used to mean struggle by means of the tongue—preaching and exhortation—and to persevere despite the obstinate resistance of some unbelievers to the beliefs and ideals of Islam...So the foundation of Jihad is Islamic propagation (da’wah).

How does that change anything? Far too many of this planet's population will be slaughtered regardless of da'wah. It is merely window dressing for Islam's preferred mode of operation, namely violent compulsion and coercion. Or are you about to lie to us and declare that there is no compulsion in Islam?

What part of:

… Hindus are considered vile idolaters, and will not be tolerated at all. If Sharia is followed strictly, they may choose conversion or death — those are their choices.

… was unclear? By Islam's own definition, much of this world's humanity is not even worthy of dhimmitude. What then for them? Must all of us stand by idly and permit Islam its slaughter?

Or is it long past tea for the free world to demonstrate its unwillingness to tolerate Islam's supreme intolerance for any and all other points of view?

I, for one, shall not go quietly into Islam's deadly night.

K'thardin said...

Palio,

First, I would like to point out that Taqiya(sp?) does't work on those in this blog. It's falling short all over the world as we see what you and yours say and then what you and yours DO.

To this end, I'd like to begin by directing you to the front page here (you may as well book mark it, you're going to be going back to it awhile):

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You'll note there on the left a neat little ticker for the Deadly Terror Attacks since 9/11. There is no other religion, no other creed in all the world that currently does this, except for maybe the various flavors of Marxism...but then the parallels between Marxism and Islam are well documented.

You and yours must answer for this, and for 1400 years of unending warfare, rape, slavery, and death. This is a campaign that continues to this very day, as noted by that little ticker down there on the aforementioned website.

Perhaps your pedophile murderous madman of a prophet did say: "The striving (mujahadat) of Allah's servants against their idle desires."

This does not change the truth that Muslims are still commanded to Holy War with Dar Al Harb using any and all means available. A religion of peace in the sense of a ceasing of all hostility it is not. I fully reject Islam's definition of peace, that being submission to Allah. That is no true definition just as Allah is no true deity.

In fact, your entire argument is the same sort of amateurish misdirection as the first sentence I quoted. Your murderous creed and willful white washing of the activities of those who follow the teachings of that monster known as Mohammad are ill served by hiding behind your scripture...even if I didn't already know about the doctrine of abrogation.

We're waking up to what you and yours really are. You should be praying that your brothers and sisters reject the teachings of the evil known as Islam before the world calls them to account for the horror Islam has inflicted upon us all. You should, but we both know that's not going to happen. I'd pray for you and yours, but I'm only human, and not capable of mercy, love, and forgiveness that the real God of all is.

Zenster said...

K'thardin: You should be praying that your brothers and sisters reject the teachings of the evil known as Islam before the world calls them to account for the horror Islam has inflicted upon us all.

Listen closely, Palio, because Muslims will begin to hear this simple demand more and more often until it is a roaring storm of outrage and disgust that rejects everything Islam stands for.

It will also, quitely likely, be one of the final ultimatums that Islam hears from Western powers before the nuclear weapons are launched.

Call Me Mom said...

My grandfather would undoubtably have advised the president to issue a plain statement that any more jihadi attacks against the United States would result in the destruction of Mecca. If he were still alive, that is.


I tend to trust that God (the Christian God) would prefer to see Muslims accept Christ's sacrifice for them and become Christians.

Either way, the rest of the world cannot be expected to sit back and do nothing in the face of such a blatant threat to our freedoms as is posed by Islam.

Ted Leddy said...

I thought President Obama's response was quite responsible. The "inner struggle" meaning is what the majority of Muslims interpret Jihad as. For the record, I think Islamic fundamentalism is repulsive in every sense, and I am not afraid, reluctant or embarrassed to call it out. But why unnecessarily provoke moderate Muslims by criticising their religion. The word unnecessarily is key. There are times when it is necesscary to be blunt with the Muslim world. But to do so when the only gain is for flag waving, cheer leading right wing punditry is highly iresponsible. When the President speaks, he has a wider audience and a wider interest that this blog has. He has American national interest to think of. Going to war with the entire Muslim world is not in Americas national interest.

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Leddy,
Please consider the language of your own post. "Islamic fundamentalism". The problem is that whether by peaceful, financial or violent jihad, the goal of Islam is to conquer the world for allah.

Most of the people in Germany weren't nazis, but they didn't speak out against the nazis because to do so would label them as less than a true German. Those who claim to be moderate muslims face the same challenge. They will be/are regarded by fundamentalists as less than muslim.

Will they alert authorities when fundamentalists come calling at the mosques fundamentalist money has built? Will they turn in their own when they hear violent rhetoric or even treasonous rhetoric as is openly spoken in great Britain? (Apparently they repealed their laws against treason and sedition, so calling for the death of the queen and the conquest of great Britain for allah is no longer actionable.)

Will they stand up for their non-muslim neighbors in the face of being killed as apostates themselves?

Human nature being what it is, I think not.

Furthermore, bluntness is seen by the muslim world as a demonstration of strength. It is respected. The apologetic nature of Mr. Obama's remarks are seen as indicators of weakness in the muslim world. While culturally correct in America, they are an open invitation to conquest in muslim countries.

It's not about flag waving or right wing punditry. It truly is about preserving our republic and our God given freedoms. American national interest is not served in any way by these craven(in the eyes of muslims)displays of submissiveness and calling America a muslim country when the facts clearly demonstrate otherwise.

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
I thought President Obama's response was quite responsible. The "inner struggle" meaning is what the majority of Muslims interpret Jihad as.
end quote.

How can you believe that you speak for the majority of Muslims?
You don't.
But we don't need a majority of Muslims believing that Jihad is inner struggle for Islam to be in conflict with the West.
Islam is still in conflict with the West, and the imperatives to violence and conquest in their religion have not changed.
If you take the view that the crimes of today are continuous with what happened in Muslim history, then what Muslims say makes perfect sense in terms of an imperialistic agenda.
You pretend to have an authority you don't have. And that is why your words are not believed here.

kapal_kertas said...

Jihad is not an Inner Struggle! Quran 4:95, "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons."