she noted that Islam or Muslim is used 70 times; terror or terrorism does not appear at all. Earlier in the year, Obama's changed the language of terror referring to Islamic violence to the innocuous "overseas contingency operation" phrase.
There is at least one appalling historical mistake in Obama's speech. Obama stated: "It was Islam at places like al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment." Even if elements of the Renaissance are attributable to Islam, I do not know of any specific ideas of al-Azhar that contributed, but that point is neither here nor there in reference to the complete misunderstanding of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment more than anything else enshrined particularly Western ideas culminating in liberty, a written Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the subsequent freedom of practice in religion, and the extension of basic human rights to women and minorities. In fact, Ibn Warraq has written a brief article on "Islamic Enlightenment," i.e., Islam is still awaiting an equivalent movement as in the Western Enlightenment.
Dr. Ibrahim Al-Bulehi is one such individual in the Middle East who recognizes this fact. In an interview with the Saudi newspaper Okaz, Al-Bulehi states without reservation that “Western Civilization Has Liberated Mankind.”
When asked by the reporter about the Muslim contribution to Western Civilization, Dr. Al-Bulehi responds with a clarity that is almost unheard of in the Arab world.
He states:
“When we review the names of Muslim philosophers and scholars whose contribution to the West is pointed out by Western writers, such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haitham, Ibn Sina, Al-Farbi, Al-Razi, Al-Khwarizmi, and their likes, we find that all of them were disciples of the Greek culture and they were individuals who were outside the [Islamic] mainstream. They were and continue to be unrecognized in our culture. We even burned their books, harassed them, [and] warned against them, and we continue to look at them with suspicion and aversion. How can we then take pride in people from whom we kept our distance and whose thought we rejected?”
In the interview published April 23, 2009 Dr. Ibrahim Al-Buleihi calls on the Arabs to acknowledge the greatness of Western civilization, and to admit the deficiencies of their own culture. He states that such self-criticism is a precondition to any change for the better.
Ibrahim Al-Buleihi is a member of the Saudi Shura Council, the national consultative body whose members are appointed to advice the Saudi King and his government. Obama ignores the facts of history as they do not fit his pro-Islamic foreign agenda. His slavish devotion to all things Islamic lead him to another point of revisionist history.
The positive spin about al-Azhar University is worthy of comment. Due to Egyptian government control, its reputation as a center of Islamic studies has been tarnished a bit; however, on the point of its more important academic reputation further comments are required.
Unlike most universities, it does not admit students who are not practicing Islam, thus it combines the institutions of a Western theological seminary, with those of the faculties established in 1961.
In 1961, Al-Azhar was reorganized by the Nasser Government and several secular faculties were added to the university, such as medicine, engineering, agriculture, as well as an Islamic women's faculty. Cf. Wikipedia.
It is foolish to acclaim al-Azhar as a University, in a Western sense, because it does not exist to that end. It is more closely akin to a theological seminary with modern professional degrees, only in compliance with Islam, as an afterthought and as a necessary accommodation to modernity. Indeed, "the library does not collect non-Islamic literature" (Cf. Wikipedia). There is not a University in the Western sense.
Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, the current Imam of Al-Azhar, is an interesting character to consider while evaluating the reputation of Al-Azhar. However, Tantawi also states that a priority of Muslims are "to master all knowledge of the world and the hereafter, not least the technology of modern weapons to strengthen and defend the community and faith". He adds that "Mastery over modern weaponry is important to prepare for any eventuality or prejudices of the others, although Islam is a religion of peace" (Cf. Wikipedia). Obviously contradictory, what Tantawi is stating is that Muslims must master weapons of war to defend Islam.
He elaborates that Islam is the best faith to follow, and
"of the duty of active da'wa; while reinforcing the difference between the non-Muslims living apart from Muslims and who are not enemies of Islam ("Muslims are allowed to undertake exchanges of interests with these non-Muslims so long as these ties do not tarnish the image of the faith"), and "the non-Muslims who live in the same country as the Muslims in cooperation and on friendly terms, and are not enemies of the faith" ("In this case, their rights and responsibilities are the same as the Muslims so long as they do not become enemies of Islam"). Cf. Wikipedia.
There are few bridges to Islam as elaborated by this paragon of Muslim faith. Obama is whistling in the wind if this is the best University in the Middle East.
Historical inaccuracies abound in the speech. The first ten minutes are quite dismal when examined for accuracy.
Politically, I would suppose it might seem ungracious but Obama did not acknowledge that a military dictatorship exists in the host country. Human rights activists have argued that Egypt should restore its 1971 Constitution and suspend its ongoing emergency law.
Obama repeats the similar misunderstandings of Islam that has consistently plagued American policy makers. He states: "Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." This repeats the oft-noted Manichean split that somehow there is a vast middle ground of moderate, well-meaning Muslims. If they exist, where are they? And, if they are prominent Muslims, why aren't they denouncing their co-religionists? Why would it be up to the temporary occupier of the Oval Office to be their apologist?
Obama repeats the familiar American refrain that Islam is the `religion of peace.' I note he did not quote from the Koran in its intolerant manner:
“When you encounter the kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly” (Koran 47:4).
Obama claims "America and Islam are not exclusive." America is diverse, multi-religious; Islam is not. Islam is an exclusive faith as pointed out by the restrictions of study at al-Azhar. Islam has every right to define itself; it has. It should be up to Obama to honestly portray Islam as it is, not as he would like to portray it. This is disingenuous.
Obama displays a shocking ignorance of American history.
Burning of the USS Philadelphia, Barbary war
He states: "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote:
"The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."
The conflict of early American relations with Islam is completely lost. In The Legacy of Jihad, by Andrew G. Bostom,
he describes how Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as ambassadors, met in 1786 with the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of Jihad piracy – murder and enslavement emanating from the so-called Barbary States of North Africa, corresponding to modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. However, the spirit of the young Republic came to be embodied in the slogan "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute." Bostom notes that "By June/July 1815 the ably commanded U.S. naval forces had dealt their Barbary jihadist adversaries a quick series of crushing defeats. This success ignited the imagination of the Old World powers to rise up against the Barbary pirates Cf. "The Truth About the History of Islam in Europe."
The two future presidents did comment on their understanding of Islam. In their statement to Congress, the ambassadors noted:
“...that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Obama quotes Jefferson approvingly since Keith Ellison, as a Muslim, was sworn in to serve in the House of Representatives as a United States Congressman from the 5th district of Minnesota. What Obama does not mention is why Jefferson had a copy of the Koran, the one that Ellison used for his oath of office. Jefferson needed the Koran for information about Islam. And he needed the background because the United States was going to war in the early 1800s against Muslims along the Barbary Coast as the anthem states "from the Halls of Moctezuma to the shores of Tripoli." Cf. Michael B. Oren, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present (New York W. W. Norton & Company, 2007), pp. 17-40.
"And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States." He has stated this before without evidence. If he can add specifics it would be helpful since Islam has played a small role in the U.S. hardly warranting the comment of enrichment.
There were no Muslims among the passengers on the Mayflower or the settlers at Jamestown. Muslims were conspicuously absent from the ranks of George Washington’s Army of the Revolution and played no role in the creation of the American republic.
Obama states that Muslims have fought in our wars however there is no record of any Islamic Americans during the Civil War nor in World War I. The great immigrations that lasted from 1865 to 1925 brought 35,000,000 people to the New World: 4,500,000 from Ireland, 4,000,000 from Great Britain, 6,000,000 from central Europe, 2,000,000 from the Scandinavian countries, 5,000,000 from Italy, 8,000,000 from Eastern Europe, and 3,000,000 from the Balkans. But the number of Muslims who came here from the Middle East was statistically nil.
It is true as Obama states that Muslims in America have prospered. Their prosperity though is in spite of Islamic, and attributable to Obama's unmentionables, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which allow people of talent to prosper where they can not in many Muslim majority societies.
Obama criticizes colonialism in the Middle East as if America played a role there. We have not. Britain and France were Western colonial powers.
Yet, Obama sees himself as a champion of Islam over supposed colonial sins.
"I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
I see nowhere in the Constitution that the occupier of the Oval Office is to promote the mosque, in contradiction to the separation of church and state but Obama clearly is committing himself to promoting Islam.
There is no room in a free society for laws restricting freely expressed or held views against any religion, as the Supreme Court made clear in the 1952 case Burstyn v. Williams:
[F]rom the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press, it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them which is sufficient to justify prior restraints upon the expression of those views. It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches, or motion pictures.
Obama continues:
That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.(Obama actually referred to the Muslim headscarf, which he defended, as a hajib, rather than a hijab, although the reporting agencies cleared this up for public release).
The Cairo speech is the beginning of a major re-definition of American religious practice. In this speech, Obama substituted the common Islamic/international understanding of "freedom of worship," as a replacement for the traditional 1st Amendment phrase freedom of religion.
Obama highlighted the change with his emphasis on private practices and expressions of religion, such as the wearing of religious garb. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It is about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, and to engage and dispute religious ideas in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher and religious Quakers don't go to war--yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith.
Government shifts in freedom of worship is arbitrary, rather than an absolute inalienable right given from God, as in the 1st Amendment. For example, when it is in their interest, Muslim majority nations ban inappropriate Muslim dress as they see fit. Even the University that Obama praises as a model of intellectual and Muslim achievement, Egypt's Al-Azhar University, banned the niqab (the full Muslim dress) because it is at odds with Egyptian practice. In the Middle East, the niqab is associated with Salafism, an ultra-conservative school of thought practiced mostly in Saudi Arabia.
In addition, Obama is committing the American government to promoting sharia practices and will use the power of the government to punish those who oppose Islam. This is a frightening abuse of power.
Religious liberty for others, or for all, other than Muslims, is not his point. The City of San Francisco Board’s resolution refers to the Vatican as a “foreign country” meddling in the affairs of the City and proclaims the Church’s moral teaching and beliefs on homosexuality as “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable,” “insensitive and ignoran[t].” Roman Catholics are attacked by civil authorities but these religionists are not accorded protection. A recent 9th Circuit Court ruling supports a San Francisco city resolution against Catholics.
Obama makes a point of advocating Islam on several points. For example, he considers it a part of his job to ensure that Muslims have religious freedom and are able to fulfill zakat, a religious rite of contributing. What Obama does not mention is that charitable foundations in America have connected Muslims to radical extremist terrorists groups that affiliated with the funding of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Obama let Saudis off the hook and ensured that they can not be prosecuted for any possible link between Islamic funding and 9/11.
The Federal government is actively promoting Islam. The White House site featured the video "Muslim Americans Serving in the U.S. Government." The government, previous to Obama, did not promote one religion serving in the government but I am positive that Hindus, Jews, Christians, and others have served well.
Quotes seem geared for average Muslim in HD Technipander.
Lema Bashir, a Palestinian Muslim trial attorney for the voting rights section of the Civil Rights division in the Justice Department.
Bashir relates that her father was born in "Northern Palestine." However, there is no such country in Gaza or the "West Bank." There is only a Northern Israel. Obama is stating that Israel is "Palestine."
Afeefa Syeed, a Muslim and Senior Advisor for Culture and Development with the Middle East and Asia Bureaus of USAID (the U.S. Agency for International Development), is quoted as recently USAID money goes, courtesy of the American taxpayer, to Hezbollah and HAMAS.
"The ideals that we hold as American Muslims are not that different from what they--from what Muslims around the world also hold."
If this point is true, then Muslims in America are not moderate, and are no more reasonable and civil and less violent and extreme than their co-religionists around the rest of the world.
America is being claimed as part of the Ummah using taxpayer funds to promote Islam. While there is a Constitutional separation between church and state in America with Obama there is no separation between state and mosque. Yet, the Establishment Clause clearly prohibits the use of federal dollars to promote religion, including and especially a specific religion.
In addition, Obama certainly does not mind taking credit for the accomplishments of others. He states: "And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries."
This was a Bush accomplishment; it is convenient for Obama to take credit for it but not one nation has signed on since the Inauguration, and, not one nation has agreed to send one combat troop for the effort. England and some other allies have only agreed to send police or trainers to the region.
Obama endorses the "Arab Peace Initiative" as promoted by his handlers Saudi Arabia. He has stated this before but he completely defers to the Saudis on this point. The Saudis first proposed this in 2002 at the Beirut Summit of the Arab League by then-Crown Prince, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007. Obama is following the Saudi line here.
Obama does not understand Islamic history either. He states: "we must address together . . . religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition."
Interesting that he promotes the Islamic name for Spain and Portugal. He revises history to suit his Islamic agenda. The reality of the Islamic repression is clear.
Richard Fletcher states in his book Moorish Spain that:
"Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch."
In the essay Andalusian Myth, Eurabian Reality, Bat Ye'or and Andrew G. Bostom examine the myth of the supposed "tolerance" enjoyed by Christians and Jews in the Iberian Peninsula: "Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains; many abandoned their land and fled to the towns. Harsh reprisals with mutilations and crucifixions would sanction the Mozarab (Christian dhimmis) calls for help from the Christian kings. Moreover, if one dhimmi harmed a Muslim, the whole community would lose its status of protection, leaving it open to pillage, enslavement and arbitrary killing."
This humiliating status provoked many revolts, punished by massacres. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa in 781 and 881, Cordova (805, 818), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and in 868), and again in Toledo (811-819). Many of the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in the Koran 5:33:
"The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20 000 families expelled. Feuding was endemic in the Andalusian cities between the different sectors of the population: Arab and Berber colonizers, Iberian Muslim converts (Muwalladun) and Christian dhimmis (Mozarabs). There were rarely periods of peace in the Amirate of Cordova (756-912), nor later. Al-Andalus represented the land of jihad par excellence. Every year, sometimes twice a year, raiding expeditions were sent to ravage the Christian Spanish kingdoms to the north, the Basque regions, or France and the Rhone valley, bringing back booty and slaves. Andalusian corsairs attacked and invaded along the Sicilian and Italian coasts, even as far as the Aegean Islands, looting and burning as they went. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia, where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women."
In Granada, up to five thousand Jews perished in a pogrom by Muslims in 1066. The Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on the Jewish and Christian populations. Suspicious of the sincerity of converts to Islam, Muslim "inquisitors" (i.e., antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslims. A prominent Andalusian jurist, Ibn Hazm of Cordoba (d. 1064), wrote that Allah has established the infidels' ownership of their property merely to provide booty for Muslims. Cf. "The Truth About Islam in Europe."
The Islamic record in Spain is mixed at least and Obama glosses over any uncomfortable facts of historical accounts.
He notes: "Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations." He might want to mention that the idea came from Spain, a largely Catholic nation historically, and is still a co-sponsor.
He commits us to Islamic social causes that will cost Americans more resources when we can least afford them. To this end, the transfers will be a loss of technology and gifts to Islamic Middle Eastern Arabs. He is clearly committed to promoting Islamic causes.
This is a historically flawed, religiously biased anti-American speech. Obama is passing up an opportunity to advance universal principles like the rule of law, constitutionalism, and religious liberty. Obama might have mentioned that Americans have died for Muslims in Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia but then that would mean he would have something of value to say about America. The lack of presidential leadership is all the more striking once you consider past examples:
"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy
Posts
