I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United
States and Muslims around the world; one based upon the truth that America and
Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings. – Barack Hussein Obama, Cairo, 2009
For anyone who
understands that the US Constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document
–neither in letter nor in spirit – it should be alarmingly apparent that the
Obama-incumbency is a dramatic and disturbing point of inflection in the
history of America and its “Western” allies. By “Western” I mean countries
whose political practices and societal norms are rooted in Judeo- Christian
foundations in a cultural rather than in any religious sense.
The devil is not in the
details
One does not have
to be an expert in Islamic history or culture, or be familiar with the details
of Koranic verse or Hadithic texts to realize that Obama’s characterization of
the alleged affinity between America and Islam is entirely detached from any reality
on the ground–particularly with regard to the matters he enumerates in the
preceding excerpt from his 2009 Cairo speech.
All one has to do
is follow the daily news that routinely convey reports of the Hobbesian horrors
that flared across Syria, Libya, Egypt and other Arab countries once the
Leviathan “cap” of tyranny, holding these bestial impulses in check, was
“uncorked.”
Worse, in some
parts of the Muslim world, blood curdling atrocities have become so commonplace
they hardly make the news at all.
For when it comes
to issues such as justice, progress, tolerance and respect for societal and/or
religious diversity, a yawning chasm divides America from Islam. Indeed,
American society, as a product of the values embodied in the Constitution and
the Judeo-Christian values it draws on; and Islamic society as a product of
Sharia and the Muslim values it draws on, are irreconcilably exclusive and
antithetically opposed to one another.
No amount of
convoluted scholarly debate on the intricacies of Islamic scriptures or benign
interpretations of their “real” significance, can change the gruesome facts
that prevail throughout Muslim-majority societies – from West Africa to East
Asia.
Justice? Like
stoning of female rape victims for “adultery? Progress? Like fathers
slaughtering daughters to preserve their “honor”? Tolerance? Like summary
lynching of “gays” because of their sexual preferences? Dignity of all human
beings? Like butchery of non- Muslim “infidels” for practicing their faith?
Pervasive and perverse
Neither are these
unrepresentative or isolated anecdotal instances of barbarity and bigotry that
occur in Islamic societies. Indeed, they– and other manifestations of harsh
brutality, totally foreign to American and “Western” ways –pervade much of the
Muslim world. Extensive surveys of Muslim majority countries across Africa and
Asia show that there is widespread endorsement for making Sharia the law of the
land and adopting the severe practices prescribed in it.
A recent 2013 poll
by Pew Research Center found that “solid majorities in most of the countries
surveyed across the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South
Asia and Southeast Asia favor the establishment of sharia, including 71% of
Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian
territories.”
An earlier pre-Arab
Spring survey conducted in 2010 across seven major Muslim countries from
Nigeria to Indonesia found that in most there were large majorities in favor of
stoning for adultery, amputation of limbs for theft and death for apostasy
(leaving Islam).
So while there is
considerable country-to-country variation in the degree of support for the
enforcement of the more brutal Sharia compliant prescriptions, it is clear that
in terms of defining societal parameters – individual liberties, gender
equality (including equality before the law), religious tolerance and
socio-cultural pluralism – a gigantic gulf separates America from Islam.
One would be hard
pressed to find any area where they do in fact “overlap and share common
principles” in any significant manner.
‘Islam has always been part of America’s story’
In his Cairo
“outreach” speech, with the Muslim Brotherhood seated in positions of
prominence –much to the chagrin of his host Hosni Mubarak – Obama told his
audience: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
Then extolling the alleged Muslim contribution to the development of the US he
declared, no more than a few years after 9/11, when in the name of Islam, Muslims
reduced the Twin Towers to a pile of rubble, he remarked: “Since our founding,
American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have... built our
tallest building [sic].”
Admittedly, much
water has flown under the bridge since Obama’s initial outreach address to the
Muslim world in June 2009, shortly after his election. But precisely because it
was delivered when he was still unencumbered by domestic constraints and
foreign frustrations, it perhaps reflected most accurately the unfiltered
essence of the political instincts he brought to the Oval Office and the inputs
that have gone into shaping his geopolitical credo.
His interpretation
of the international role the US should play, the nature of the country’s
interests, and the manner in which they should be pursued; his perception of
friend and foe and the attitudes that should be adopted towards them, all seem
to entail dramatic and disconcerting departure from that of most of his
predecessors.
In this regard, he
is the first US president who is explicitly and overtly unmoored, both
cognitively and emotionally, from the bollards of America’s founding
Judeo-Christian heritage, and who somehow conceives that Islam is not
inherently inimical to American values.
It is through this
Islamo-philic prism that the Obama-administration’s attitude to, and
performance of, its foreign policy must be evaluated–including last weekend’s
acquiescence on the Iranian nuclear issue.
The chilling thing
In the course of
half a decade, under the stewardship of Obama, the US has had its standing
shredded both in the eyes of its allies – and worse – in the eyes of its
adversaries.
Debacle has piled
upon debacle. Allies have been abandoned and enemies emboldened, worse,
empowered. Inappropriate action has been complemented by equally inappropriate
inaction. True, in 2009 Obama was handed an unenviable heritage from the
preceding administration–a severe financial-turned-economic crisis and two
ill-considered ground wars in Asia. But Obama has ensured that the latter will end
in futile failure– even demoralizing defeat; while in dealing with the former
he has precipitated soaring deficits, crippling debt and chronic and
debilitating joblessness, coupled with burgeoning dependence on welfare.
But the really
chilling aspect of the Obama incumbency is that it is genuinely difficult to
diagnose whether the abysmal results we see represent a crushing failure of his
policies or a calculated success; whether they are the product of chronic
ineptitude or purposeful foresight; whether they reflect myopic
misunderstanding, moronic incompetence or malicious intent.
This general
conundrum is particularly pertinent with regard to what transpired in Geneva
last Sunday, which appeared to many – including erstwhile Obamaphiles – to be
an inexplicable US climb-down from what looked “suspiciously” like positions
that heralded emerging success.
Some had little
doubt as to what lay behind the move. In a forceful article, Caroline Glick
asserted bluntly: “His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
power…The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.”
Undermining allies, underpinning adversaries
Others took a more
general, less Israel-centric, perspective on Obama motives.
“Obama has no
interest in weakening our adversaries while he does seem to have an interest in
weakening our allies”, warned Dinesh D’Souza, adding: “If you were trying to
find a consistent way to predict what Obama is doing in the ME it is very
simple. He has been undermining our allies and allowed our adversaries to
remain in power.”
D’Souza, who
directed the 2012 highest grossing documentary, “2016: Obama’s America,” which
made a number of troubling predictions as to what to expect in the second term
of Barack Obama, has now released a new video, suggesting how the president,
driven by his “anti-colonial mindset” he allegedly imbued from his father,
plans to “take America down a notch.”
D’Souza warned that
Obama would “promiscuously” increase the debt to mortgage the US to foreign
interests and would purposely strive to shrink the influence of American
foreign policy. He points to what he sees as a “double-standard” in US policy
under the current administration in the Mideast, intervening when this seems to
advance Islamist interests (as in Egypt in 2010) and refraining to do so when
this does not (as in Iran in 2009); engaging in Libya to depose a largely
reformed Gaddafi but not in Syria to topple an inimical Assad.
D’Souza concludes
that “this is not the unintentional effect of a blundering president,” hinting
darkly :” When an intelligent man does something contradictory, it’s not
because he is a fool but it is because he is up to something else.”
‘Then, it all makes perfect
sense’
Now while I would
advise against uncritical acceptance of all D’Souza’s arguments and
interpretations of Obama’s conduct, they paint a picture plausible enough to be
taken seriously. They certainly provide a cogent context for interpreting the
reason for, and the significance of, what longtime Obama supporter Alan
Dershowitz dubbed the US’s “Chamberlain moment” in Geneva over the weekend.
The veteran
Democratic stalwart condemned the P5+1 pact, forged with the Iranian theocracy,
as “a deal which is bad for the United States, for the West, and for Israel…”
He railed : “…all reasonable, thinking people should understand that weakening
the sanctions against Iran without demanding that they dismantle their nuclear
weapons program is a prescription for disaster. Have we learned nothing from
North Korea and Neville Chamberlain?”
By contrast, Bashar
Assad lauded the accord! Indeed, with the ink barely dry on the agreement, it
seems on the verge of falling apart, with Iran rejecting the White House
interpretation of central clauses in it–regarding Iran’s right to enrich (with
the Russians supporting Tehran’s version), and continued construction as the
planned plutonium producing plant at Arak; and uncertainties as to the off-site
development of components for its future operation.
Were all these
flaws and ambiguities unintentionally overlooked? Or were they intentionally
ignored? Was the agreement designed to prevent Iran from attaining weaponized
nuclear capabilities? Or was it devised to sow dissension in the international
front, assembled with such difficulty, to impose effective sanctions on Iran?
So on the face of
it Dershowitz’s exasperated query” Have we learned nothing from North Korea and
Neville Chamberlain?” should be perfectly understandable.
Unless of course,
one assumes, as do Glick and D’Souza, that Obama’s “ goal is not to prevent
Iran from becoming a nuclear power…[but] to weaken the State of Israel,” and
that “Obama has no interest in weakening our adversaries while he does seem to
have an interest in weakening our allies.”
Then, it all makes
perfect sense!
Fractured foundations?
I do not pretend to
know what Barack Obama’s true intentions are. I cannot determine with certainty
whether he is a bungling novice or a brilliant strategist. I can only judge
from his conduct and draw conclusions from my observations.
Now if I were
asked: “How would anyone, who was purposefully aiming to undermine the Western
world and bolster its antipodal adversaries, behave?,” I would be compelled to
respond: “Much like Obama.” It is difficult to understate the long-term
ramifications of the Obama-incumbency on what we have come to call the “West.”
However it is becoming increasingly apparent that it will emerge from it
severely battered, its spirit emaciated and its foundations fundamentally
fractured.
Whether it will
withstand the Obama legacy, only time will tell. But the outcome is far from
certain.
***
Already in his Cairo speech President Barack Obama dissembled
about Islam:
June 4, 2009
Obama quotes verse 5:32, omits 5:33
Mladen
Andrijasevic
President
Obama in his
speech said " The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an
innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it
is as if he has saved all mankind."
I really
find it odd that neither President Obama nor any of his advisors did not realize
that the meaning of verse
5:32 is not clear until it is quoted together with verse 5:33
which follows it:
005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel
that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading
mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any
one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then
although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after
that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His
Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is:
execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite
sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a
heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Update: Andrew Bostom writes:
Immediately following the murderous acts of jihad terrorism committed on
September 11, 2001, Ibn Warraq highlighted the tragic irony of many apologists
quoting selectively from Qur'an 5:32-"whoso slays a soul . . . shall be as
if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as
if he has given life to mankind altogether"- attempting to demonstrate
that the Qur'ran disapproved of violence and killing.
Firstly, these wonderful sounding
words come from a preexisting Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5, "Thus was created a single man,
to teach us that every person who loses a single soul, it shall be written
about him as if he has lost the entire world, and every person who sustains a
single soul, it shall be written about him as if he has sustained the entire
world."
And apologists
for Islam-just like President Obama-quote the Koranic words out of context. For
the very next verse offers quite a different meaning from that of 5:32, which
was "laid...down for the Israelites," as stated in the next verse, 5:33,
continuing:
"...Our apostles brought them [the
Jews] veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great
evils in the land. Those that make war against Allah and His apostle [Muhammad]
and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and
feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country. (Qur'an
5:33)"
The supposedly
noble sentiments of the first verse, taken from a Jewish source, are entirely
undercut by the second verse, which becomes a bloodthirsty menacing by Muhammad
of the Jews. (And as an aside the Muslim sources estimate Muhammad killed
24,000 Jews in his jihad campaigns against them). Far from abjuring violence,
these verses aggressively insist that any who oppose the Muslim prophet will be
killed, or crucified, mutilated, and banished.
