Saturday, June 27, 2009

Their Very Own Envoy

President Barack Hussein Obama has made a big deal of his outreach to the “Muslim world”. His speech in Cairo was a major example of this ongoing effort, and he has repeatedly emphasized his respect and solicitude for the world’s 7.9 septillion Muslims.

Mr. Obama’s latest outreach to Islam has taken the form of appointing an envoy to Muslims. According to Al Arabiya:

Obama Admin Appoints Envoy to Muslim World

The United States State Department announced Friday the appointment of a Muslim woman from Indian origin as a new envoy to deal with the Muslim world, following a previous appointment of an Egyptian-born advisor in April.

“I am pleased to announce the appointment of Farah Pandith to serve as Special Representative to Muslim Communities,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who appointed the 41-year-old to interat [sic] with Muslims across the globe, said in the statement.


Pandith, who immigrated to the U.S. as a child from Indian Kashmir’s summer capital, Srinagar, will “be responsible for executing the administration’s efforts to engage with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level,” the department said in a statement.

Notice what’s going on here: the world’s Muslims are considered to be a single entity.

We don’t give that kind of treatment to Jews and Hindus. The former aren’t that numerous, and the geographic concentration of the latter — even though there are hundreds of millions of them — may make a special envoy unnecessary. But what about Buddhists? They’re scattered all over the place.

And what about Christians? President Obama recently said that the United States shouldn’t be considered a Christian country. Well, where’s our envoy to the “Christian World”?

Needless to say, no such office will ever be created. Christianity has been fragmented almost since its inception, and there’s no unitary entity to which an envoy could be assigned.

Muslims, however, are unitary. There is a single organization, the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), representing 57 Muslim countries. The leaders of those countries consider their nations Muslim nations. Is there a single leader of a majority Christian nation who considers his country to be a Christian nation?

Outside of Vatican City, that is.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

One interesting thing about Ms. Pandith, according to Al Arabiya, is that she may not even be a Muslim:
- - - - - - - - -
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly confirmed Thursday that Pandith had been appointed, and promised a statement later.

Asked why the State Department had not formally announced Pandith’s appointment, Kelly noted it had been disclosed in an internal memo.

Kelly said he could not say whether Pandith was a Muslim, although two U.S. officials said privately that they believed she was. Pandith was not immediately available for comment.

So she might be a Muslim, and she’s going to be the U.S. envoy to the Muslim world. My guess is that she knows how to say the shahada, and will go veiled when she meets the Saudis or the delegates to the OIC. She’ll be at least as Muslim as her boss is.

And what about the Organization of the Christian Conference? Is there going to be an OCC?

My advice is: Don’t hold your breath for that one.

Hat tip: TB.


Zenster said...

Notice what’s going on here: the world’s Muslims are considered to be a single entity.

I'm confident that all through Islam, Muslims everywhere are cheering at how they have received such preferential treatment. And why shouldn't they? After all, its just one more form of jizya (tribute), due Islam from this world's unbelievers.

As is so often―make that TOO often―the case with this world's liberals and their cohort of budding social engineers, the Law of Unintended Consequences goes totally ignored.

Far more devastating are the consequences that await our world's Muslim population as it greedily entrenches this latest obeisance being made by the West.

How often have we all witnessed arguments by liberals et al against treating Islam as a monolithic entity? Does anyone really think that there will be any such protestations to arise amidst their incessant kumbayahs over this latest kowtowing to Muslims by The One?

In their rush to bow to Muslims, one and all, liberals are setting the stage for a Grand Guignol that will see all of Islam properly held responsible for the nuclear terrorist attacks that are sure to come. Especially now, with BHO rolling America on its collective belly before Islam.

One can almost hear the screams of disbelief, from liberals and Muslims alike, when an enraged Western world―still reeling from terrorist nuclear attacks―proceeds to lump together all Islam into the single category of "ENEMY".

It is too easy to imagine the Liberal howls of, "That's not what we meant!", as a brutalized America and Europe set about dismantling Islam for once and all time.

Thus―more than any conservative anti-jihadist could hope for―does BHO set about placing Islam's collective neck in the silk noose of appeasement and fawning. Muslims, one and all, will rush for the chance to bask in this unheralded Western ardor. Just as they will be consumed en masse in the fires of vengeance that are so likely to follow.

In this hurry to capitalize upon BHO's latest appeasement, Muslims cluster themselves under the lens of Western perception that may, one day, direct so many firey rays into their nest of perfidy.

Perhaps, only then will they understand the tremendous mistake of lining up to sit in the Santa's lap that BHO so eagerly presents to them. As Muslims gulp down this nectar of Western adulation maybe they will finally realize just how thoroughly poisoned is the chalice of Liberal nostrums.

swamykool said...

Farah Pandith is certainly a Muslim by religion. Since I am an Indian Hindu allow me to offer some background on the name, especially the surname, which seems to cause such confusion. Most probably she or her parents are from the Kashmir region of North India. In this region hundreds of thousands of Hindus were converted by the sword during the Turkish Muslim invasions from the 12th to the 16th century. Pandith or Pandit is a Hindu Surname or Caste name of that region. People who use this surname belong to the Brahmin (Priest) caste. The highest caste in the Hindu caste system. It simply means when her ancestors converted to Islam they changed their Hindu first names but retained their original Hindu surnames. Maybe it had something to do with caste pride!

rickl said...


When that comes to pass, I'll be busy hunting down leftists.

If there is ever a nuclear attack on America, the leftists who enable it have no idea what kind of hell awaits them. They sure won't get any mercy from me.

Baron Bodissey said...

swamykool --

Thanks for the additional information. I was aware of that "pandith" meant "learned person" -- it was borrowed into English and became our word "pundit" -- but I didn't know the caste aspects of it.

I have no doubt that this woman is Muslim -- there's no way that the administration would have made the mistake of appointing a non-Muslim to the position. The strange thing is that they find it necessary to publicly state that it's possible she isn't a Muslim. That part doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Obama's Cairo speech was, in itself, an official recognition of Umma by the United States.

I'm not sure any other Western chief of state has ever addressed the world's Muslims in such a specific way, as opposed to a Muslim country, a groupe of Muslim countries, or even a Muslim organisation such as the OIC.

Nominating an ambassador to this entity follows logically.

Watching Eagle said...

Dear Zenster,

I appreciate your perspectives, and it helps me to write my essays, which I hope to compile into a book.

Having said that, check out this article.

The gist of it is that the author poo-poos the threat of muslim immigration, by comparing it to Irish immigration 80 years ago.

I responded as follows:

Another angle:

The problem is that leftists can't take "brown people" seriously; they treat them like children that are no match for "advanced Western society".

Check out what century you are living in!! This is the 21st Century, NOT the 20th. Century!

At the dawn of the 20th Century, the West was so dominant that "Whites" could do what they wanted, and didn't have to think about other cultures (they could condescend to them and get away with it). That has changed now. Other "peoples" have caught up with the "whites".

Comparing the situation to "80 years ago" is significant-- leftist's concept of reality today is based on an interpretation of the state of the world in the 1920's (Europeans DID BESTRIDE THE WORLD THEN, AND NON-EUROPEANS WERE NO MATCH FOR THEM, THEN).

The fact is, the geopolitical world today (early 21st Century) is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT from the 1920's.


Concerning what these particular "migrants" are saying--


Mullah KREKAR, Norway 2006

"Is it necessary for this [theocratic] conquest [of Europe] to be by the sword? No! This will be a PEACEFUL CONQUEST!

--Sheik Qaradawi

“Listen, up, crazy freaks [native Europeans], we’re here to stay. You’re the foreigners here. With Allah on my side, I am not afraid of anything. Take my advice. Convert to Islam and you will find peace.”

-Ismaili, Rotterdam City Councilman


Otherwise, "brown people" are going to teach you "whites" a lesson you'll NEVER FORGET!!

My point is that the Left is NOT going to attack the muslim world. In fact, the Left is in knots for America using two Nuclear weapons on "non-western" Japan in WWII. (Think about Rev. Wright's sermon).

Obama has no plans in foreign policy but gradual surrender to the Ummah (I don't think he realizes that is what will happen.)

I will explore the two obstacles to a successful military coup in another article. Until then, please get back to reality that Obama isn't going to nuclear bomb the MME. (When even Bush kept intoning "Islam is a religion of Peace", we have a problem.)

PatriotUSA said...

Watching Eagle,
I like what you have posted and am afraid I have to agree with your assesment that this administration is not going to ANYTHING that will harm or impede Islam, quite the contrary.

Those who discount Islam today are fools and day dreamers who have been brainwashed by too many deceades of leftist propaganda. If anyone doubts Islam's intentions they need to read the following book:

The Legacy of Jihad

Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non Muslims.

Edited by Andrew G. Bostom MD

Foreward by Ibn Warraq.

I consider this book a must read who anyone who wants to know about Islam or its intentions. It is a long book, tedious at times but worth its weight in gold. A warning and a call to arms against the battle of our time.

Zenster said...

Watching Eagle: Dear Zenster,

I appreciate your perspectives, and it helps me to write my essays, which I hope to compile into a book

I'm honored that you are able to derive so much inspiration from my work. I look forward to reading your own publications.

The problem is that leftists can't take "brown people" seriously; they treat them like children that are no match for "advanced Western society".

I could not agree with you more. The paternalistic and condescending manner with which Liberals treat Third World cultures is intensely bigoted and far surpasses any justifiable cultural bias that modern conservatives might express.

Obama has no plans in foreign policy but gradual surrender to the Ummah (I don't think he realizes that is what will happen.).

Your scenario of "gradual surrender" does not adequately encompass my own position that such appeasement only facilitates or encourages nuclear terrorist attacks.

Perish the thought that such grievous events should come to pass. However, if they did, even a hint―much less any outright mention by BHO―of surrendering to Islam would see a military coup that would rightfully eject Obama from office faster than the Devil could get his shoes on.

Until then, please get back to reality that Obama isn't going to nuclear bomb the MME.

Nowhere did I say that BHO was going to employ nuclear arms in any fight or response to Islamic terrorism on American soil.

My sole point is that his favoritism and treatment and of Islam as a monolithic entity will have the exact opposite overall result from what he intends.

Institutionalizing public perception of Islam as a single, unified entity will do more to facilitate categorizing Muslims as a universal enemy than anything all the anti-jihadists and conservative pundits could do, combined.

That is my point. BHO will most likely be sitting, incapacitated in some windowless office while true American patriots retaliate against Islamic WMD attacks in the way Muslims have been begging for over the course of several decades. Muslims howl for Total War and they will one day get it. Of that you can be sure.

(When even Bush kept intoning "Islam is a religion of Peace", we have a problem.).

May his Saudi arse-kissing soul burn in eternal Hell for such treason against America.

Zenster said...

Italy Expels Palestinian Hijacker to Syria.

ROME — A lawyer says Italian authorities are set to expel to Syria one of the Palestinians who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and killed an American passenger in 1985.

What a genuine tragedy it would be if Youssef Magied al-Molqui never made it to his Syrian destination. It would be even more heartbreaking if his body was never found. Ever.

Henrik R Clausen said...


Watching Eagle said...

Deep ethical questions to ponder

Fellow readers, my regrets that I haven't published more essays (this is the week of finals for the semester in graduate school), but I now have a genuine question for the readers of GoV to ponder-- It is not a retorical question, please think about it, and write out your arguments (I especially look forward to Zenster's thought out opinion).

The question is as follows:

Suppose that, in the 1600's or 1700's, the Native Americans had had Nuclear Weapons with Inter-Continental Ballistic Missles (and the West lacked them). WOULD IT BE PROPER, ETHICAL, FOR THEM TO HAVE GLASSED ALL THE CITIES OF ENGLAND (in the time of Hobbes, Milton, Bunyan, and Locke)??? Or how about daring missions sanctioned by chiefs, and carried out by FREEDOM FIGTHERS to NUKE THE TOWNS OF BOSTON, PHILIDELPHIA, NEW YORK, JAMESTOWN, AND CHARLESTOWN? Would this be a proper, ethical thing to do? Imagine Ben Franklin and his family killed by a suitcase nuke.

Another question is, would it have made a difference in history?

Keep in mind that Islamists are only doing to the West in the
21st. Century what English "migrants" did to Native Americans in the 17th to 19th. Centuries--except that English "migrants" had no thought for the Native Americans, while the Islamists do think of us Westerners-- They merely WANT OUR CULTURE TO ADAPT TO SERVICE THEIRS.

Anyway, please weigh in on what you think the Native Americans should have done to England and the colonial towns (morally and ethically) if they had Nuclear weapons.