Author:
Publication: Faithfreedom.org
Date: June 6, 2009
URL: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/06/obamas-deceptiospeech-in-cairo/
Zartoist (Zarathystra) is the psedonyme of
Iranian-American scholar of Philosophy and Religion and a former believer
in Obama's now hollow slogans of "Hope" and "Change"
Obama:
I am honored to be in the timeless city of
Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand
years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a
century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together,
you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for
your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud
to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace
from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
Zartosht:
The Al-Azhar madrassah - the "beacon
of Islamic learning" at which Obama is "honored" to speak -
has trained, and is currently training, many fundamentalist Islamic scholars
who assert the incompatibility of Islam with certain basic human rights -
such as the complete legal equality of women, and freedom of religion. Its
scholars have even debated the question of whether female genital mutilation
is permitted in Islam, with some taking the view that while it is not obligatory
under Islamic Law, the tradition of Islamic legal scholarship also makes it
clear that the practice does not carry any criminal penalty whatsoever.
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP148307
…
Obama:
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions
in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th,
2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against
civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not
only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has
bred more fear and mistrust.
Zartosht:
The view that Islam is "inevitably hostile…
to human rights" is not an outcome of the attacks of September 11th,
2001. This view predates 9/11 both among scholars and the public, and whether
it is true or false should be based on a rigorous comparative analysis of
the Quran and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR was rejected
at its very inception by Saudi Arabia, and was explicitly rejected by the
Iranian Ambassador to the UN after the Islamic Revolution in that country.
It is a fact that the majority of Muslims, as represented by the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, have rejected the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The OIC drafted a "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights
in Islam" as an alternative to the un-Islamic UN UDHR. A careful analysis
of this document - which claims Shaira (Islamic Law) as it sole source - demonstrates
the Islamic rejection of basic human rights, including, for example, the equal
legal rights of women and freedom of religion and conscience (especially for
secular atheists or believers in atheistic religions such as Buddhism).
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Ohmyrus30816.htm
…
Obama:
So long as our relationship is defined by
our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and
who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our
people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord
must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between
the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest
and mutual respect; and 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.
Zartosht:
The United States of America is a political
state, Islam is a religious faith - or so we are told. If that were true,
the entire premise of a President of the United States making a policy speech
(and it is in fact, a formal policy speech, with numerous policy announcements
and proposals) on the relationship of the United States to Muslims or of the
relationship between "America and Islam" is not only logically incoherent,
it is also a departure from constitutional norms of the separation of Religion
and State - to a degree that verges on treason.
However, the case is not so simple. Obama's
speech tacitly acknowledges what he and others (including G.W. Bush) publicly
deny - that, unlike Christianity (which was only co-opted for political purposes)
Islam is an INHERENTLY POLITICAL religion, that it is a (albeit ill-defined)
State, on a par with the government of the United States of America. Obama
claims that "In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never
will be - at war with Islam.", however, if Islam is a State, then we
ARE at war with Islam.
In summary, either Obama is violating the
constitutional separation of religion and state in this policy speech, or
he is either deluded concerning who the political enemy is in the so-called
"War on Terror".
Question: If a trans-national cohort of Islamic
terrorists based in the "lawless" regions of Pakistan (actually,
they are under Islamic Law, not "lawless") were to succeed in detonating
a nuclear weapon in New York or Washington, would we retaliate by nuking Islamabad
(the capital of Pakistan), or by nuking Mecca or Medina? What if the perpetrators
were Hezbollah terrorists from Lebanon and Shiite Iraq, using a nuclear weapon
smuggled (illegally) out of Iran by rogue agents of the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard? Would we retaliate by nuking Beirut, Baghdad, and Tehran - or Mecca/Medina?
The answer to this type of question goes a long way in determining whether
or not, pragmatically and in effect, the US government considers Islam a personal
faith or an ill-defined sovereign State (with its capital in Mecca, or Medina).
…
Obama:
There must be a sustained effort to listen
to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek
common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak
always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth
as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the
interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that
drive us apart.
Zartosht:
First of all, it should become clear in the
course of this Response that in this speech Obama is doing everything but
speaking "the truth". Secondly, and in support of the point I've
just made, to quote the "Holy" Quran to the effect that we should
always speak the truth is either imbecilic or Orwellian. Obviously, any "revealed"
organized religion, especially one that claims the eternal unchanging validity
of its laws, is not interested in unfettered intellectual debate - in 'seeking
out the truth wherever it may lead', which is presumably what Obama claims
to be interested in doing. "Be conscious of God and speak always the
truth" - well, what if "the truth" is, for example, that there
is no God (as Buddhists believe), or at least not the God of Abraham (as Hindus,
or Christian Gnostics believe)?
…
Obama:
As a student of history, I also know civilization's
debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried
the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's
Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that
developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation;
our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads
and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and
soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and
places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated
through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial
equality.
Zartosht:
Someone who has really studied the history
of interaction between the Greco-Roman civilization and, on the one hand,
Hellenized Egypt and on the other, Pre-Islamic Persia, could make a good argument
that Islam actually hindered the progress of civilization. All indications
are that "the light of learning", namely of Greek and Roman civilization,
was already being preserved and would have been preserved, in the Middle East
- especially in Persia - to the same if not a greater extent than it was after
the violent Islamic conquest of the Persian civilization (a civilization that
already had over a thousand years of fruitful interaction with the Greek-inspired
civilizations of the West).
It is also a fact that most of the scientific
"innovation in Muslim communities" cited by Obama, from Algebra
to Medicine, was the product of (mostly Persian) free-thinkers who were not
believing Muslims - scientists like Omar Khayyam, Ibn Razi, and Ibn Sina -
who only wrote their scientific treatises in Arabic (rather than their native
Persian) on account of the Arab occupation of Iran.
We do not call "Gothic architecture"
Christian, do we? The great architecture of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and
northern India is no more "Islamic". It is an amalgam of ancient
Persian, Byzantine and Indian styles - one that was already arising during
the Sassanian Persian Empire (which extended from India to Turkey). The only
"Islamic" contribution to this architecture was to prohibit the
incorporation of paintings - since depiction of human beings is forbidden
in Islam. Incidentally, this stunted the entire development of painting in
the sphere of Persian civilization, which had a rich tradition of pictorial
art before the Islamic conquest and may well have developed it to the level
of modern Europe.
As for poetry and music, most of the great
"Islamic" poets (again mostly Persians) were considered heretics
by Islamic authorities, and music is prohibited in Islam as a vain "useless"
activity. Poetry and music survived in civilizations such as Persia DESPITE
Islam. A careful study of the history of Sufism will reveal its roots in attempts
by persecuted pre-Islamic Gnostics in Persia and Egypt, to ensure the survival
of their esoteric wisdom by exoterically cloaking themselves in Islamic garb.
While many of them ultimately wound up believing their own dissimulation,
scholars of Islamic law have never been fooled - that is why they executed
Halaj and Suhrawardi, and why the poetry of no less a genius than Nizami (the
Persian analog to Shakespeare or Spenser) is censored in Iran today!!!
Obama:
I know, too, 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." And since our founding,
American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our
wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught
at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built
our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American
was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution
using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson
- kept in his personal library.
Zartosht:
John Adams could only make such a statement
because at the time he made it, he and another leading American politicians,
believed that persons upholding the economic legitimacy of slavery and maintaining
the legal oppression of women also had "no character of enmity"
to the laws of the United States. It is not surprising if Morocco was the
first country to recognize the United States, because the United States was,
on the face of it (though not at its legal core), very Islamic in its founding
days. I have in mind not only the support of many of the founders for slavery
and their lack of interest in guaranteeing women equal rights (a subject which,
by contrast, WAS seriously debated during the contemporary French Revolutionary),
but also some of the founders' views of God, such as their rejection of the
Trinity in favor of absolute divine Unity, and their rejection of the personal
divinity of Jesus.
What all of this overlooks is that THE UNITED
STATES HAS CHANGED. John Adams would certainly be turning in his grave, so
to speak. As for Thomas Jefferson, an examination of his letters (including
ones critical of Adams) show that he believed that the purpose of freedom
of religion and separation of Religion and State was to allow the conditions
for everyone to become educated enough to abandon organized religion within
two generations of his time. Jefferson was convinced that by the end of the
19th century, the Untied States would be an entirely Unitarian Universalist
country. He would be appalled that a congressman in the 21st century took
the oath to defend the constitution with his hand on the Quran, or for that
matter, that any American politician takes an oath of office with his hand
placed on the Bible. Jefferson writes that such a future, in which sectarian
differences have not been educated out of mankind by a secular state, would
demonstrate the failure of the very idea of the United States.
It is appalling that Obama, a constitutional
scholar, either does not know this, or is willing to twist the truth of his
nation's history to this extent, for such dubious ends. What Jefferson believed
in (and Adams did not) is that the United States is an evolving experiment
in the progress of the human mind. To equate this in any way with Islam, by
suggesting a fundamental similarity of principles is to denigrate the United
States in the worst possible way, and it is especially shocking for it come
from a man whose election reflects the greatest progressive change in the
evolution of the United States - namely the abolition of slavery in the civil
war, an institution which IS legally allowed in the Quran, regulated by the
Quran, and the criminalization of which is prohibited by the Quran (by prohibiting
the modification of any of its prescribed laws). (On slavery: see Quran 16:71
and 75; 23:1-6; and on the fixity of Quranic law: 5:44-45, 6:114-116, 43:2,
85:21-22, 86:12-14, and especially verses 2:85, 2:174-177, and 5:3).
Obama:
So I have known Islam on three continents
before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides
my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on
what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility
as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of
Islam wherever they appear.
Zartosht:
Again, as discussed above, to speak of a "partnership
between America and Islam" is either unconstitutional, or it is tacitly
asserting the statehood of Islam. In the latter case it would render Obama's
position self-vitiating. Furthermore, with the vast ignorance or deliberate
deception already documented above, who is Obama to decide what are "negative
stereotypes of Islam" as opposed to difficult truths which he might like
to suppress, perhaps toward the end of earning a Nobel Peace Prize or of leading
the UN after his 8 years are over?
…
Obama:
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible
from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque
in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That
is why the U.S. 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.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part
of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless
of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations
- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity;
to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share.
This is the hope of all humanity.
Zartosht:
It is not true that "freedom in America
is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion". Religious
freedom is limited by the caveat that for something to qualify as a "religion"
it has to lay no claim to making or enforcing law. John Locke made this clear,
and Jefferson and Madison followed him on this. Islam does lay a claim to
make and enforce law - in the Quran itself. Read it!
In Islam "to love…God" is not
sufficient. Barring total forgiveness (which IS encouraged in Islam), God's
decreed laws and only those laws must be enforced - the Quran is unambiguous
on this (5:44-45, 6:114-116, 43:2, 85:21-22, 86:12-14, and especially verses
2:85, 2:174-177, and 5:3), and these laws do not treat people of different
genders, religions, and stations in life, equally. Any ambiguous metaphorical
verses are clearly differentiated from the 500 or so legal verses. (3:6-7)
Therefore the second whole paragraph above
is totally incoherent. Its ending, with the presumption that "This is
the hope of all humanity", simply compounds the contradiction, and insults
human beings who do not believe in any God - some of whom, such as Buddhists,
are on the whole more peaceful and inclined to social harmony than Abrahamic
believers.
…
Obama:
Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists.
They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths
- more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable
with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
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. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than
the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating
violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.
Zartosht:
The "Holy" Koran may state as much,
but whom it defines as "innocent" or "guilty" is at odds
with our American civil liberties and the United Nations Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. To give just one example, an "adulterous" woman
is to be subject to a life-sentence of forcible confinement to her home (stoning
women is not actually grounded in extant Quranic text). I put adulterous in
quotes because in Islam, it is perfectly legal for a man to have sexual relations
with more than one woman at the same time, so long as they are wives or concubines
enslaved in war - so why shouldn't a woman sleep with another man than her
one husband? (4:16, 23:1-6; 4:16, 23:1-6)
…
Obama:
The fifth issue that we must address together
is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.
We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.
I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped
freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today.
People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based
upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential
for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing
tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness
of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon
or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well,
as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly
in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability
of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect
it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made
it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I
am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill
zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries
to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit
- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot
disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That
is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians,
Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King
Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of
Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service,
so bridges between peoples lead to action - whether it is combating malaria
in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
Zartosht:
The Quran makes it clear that Jews and Christians
are only entitled to freedom of religion if they pay tribute (i.e. taxes)
to Muslim authorities and accept military subjugation by Muslims. (9:29) While
these "people of the book" fare relatively well, Muslims who convert
to Christianity, or people belonging to non-Abrahamic religions, whether polytheistic
(Hinduism) or atheistic (Buddhism) are not to be tolerated. (9:5) The Taliban
could not even stand to have a Buddhist monument (already badly scarred and
defaced by medieval Muslims) in a Muslim country where it was not liable to
be spiritually revered by anyone. They blew up the rock-carved Bamian Buddhas.
Did the Buddhists start massacring Muslims? What would Muslims do if some
group of persons blew up the rock at the center of the Kaaba shrine in Mecca?
Obama claims to "welcome efforts like
Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue". Saudi Arabia is the
home and breeding ground of exactly the type of (Wahabi and Salafi) fundamentalists
who do not think that even ancient monuments that are "idolatrous"
should be left intact. These are people who would blow up the monuments of
Ancient Egypt if they could. Saudi Arabia is the Islamic country that most
austerely enforces Quranic laws - often in grotesque public displays of beheading
and amputation. It is a country where women are terribly oppressed under the
law, and where there is no religious freedom whatsoever! To "welcome
efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue" is either
terribly naïve or a piece of crude con-artistry.
…
Obama:
The sixth issue that I want to address is
women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I
reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her
hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an
education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where
women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality
are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh
and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of
American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much
to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing
all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe
that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect
those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should
be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority
country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue
employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Zartosht:
The Quran denies legal equality for women,
and it decrees its legal injunctions timeless and unchangeable. Period. Look
it up. Women are denied equal rights in marriage and at its dissolution, and
if "disobedient", a woman may be beaten by her husband. (4:11, 4:34)
The legal testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man (even in rape cases)
because, compared to men, women are mentally incompetent (2:282). Biological
constraints of impurity prohibit women form holding religious or political
office (which are one and the same). (2:222) Adulterous men are to be forgiven
if they repent, but adulterous women are to be mercilessly condemned. (4:16)
None of this can ever be changed short of committing the worst kind of heretical
apostasy. (6:114-116, 43:2, 85:21-22, 86:12-14, and especially verses 2:85,
2:174-177, and 5:3).
And what, in light of all this, does Obama
do? He talks about headscarves, and how he is going to punish anyone who doesn't
let American schoolgirls wear them.
…
Obama:
I know that for many, the face of globalization
is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information,
but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth
and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In
all nations - including my own - this change can bring fear. Fear that because
of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics,
and most importantly our identities - those things we most cherish about our
communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot
be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition.
Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining
distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority
countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim
communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
Zartosht:
Japan and South Korea are among the least
religious countries in the world. For them, modernization has definitely meant
secularization. Also their traditional religions are not at all comparable
with Islam in terms of obstacles to modernization. If anyone thinks some of
the analogies I have been making or the examples that I have been employing
are wanting, they are certainly of a higher standard than Obama's. Malaysia
and the UAE have seen very superficial industrial and technological development,
but are in fact very unstable and at risk of domestic rebellions and traditional
Islamic resentment at what takes place in cities like Dubai and Kuala Lampur.
Support for Osama bin Laden is particularly high among the disaffected Malaysian
population and two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE (most were Obama's
"interfaith" friends, the Saudis).
…
Obama:
And while America in the past has focused
on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement…
On education, we will expand exchange programs…
On economic development, we will create…
And today I am announcing a new global effort
with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio.
Zartosht:
Obama claims the US focus on oil and gas is
"in the past" - why then, did he go and visit the King of the heinous
fundamentalist Islamic Saudi regime right before his Cairo speech - in his
words "to seek his majesty's council"? Why did Obama submissively
bow to this Tyrant - an unprecedented act, something that even Bush, with
all of his economic ties to the Saudis, never did? Why is the United States
still buying oil from Saudi Arabia at all! This is not even consistent with
promoting a "moderate" or "reformed" Islam - if such a
thing were possible.
…
Obama:
I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim
- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to
stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest
that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations
are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur.
There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the
past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young
people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the
ability to remake this world.
Zartosht:
The Quran clearly binds Muslims to obey its
legal verses forever, until its purported Judgment day - and, for the nth
time, these are incompatible with human rights or individual liberties. Any
'reformed', 'progressive' Islam is a lie. One may argue that there are well-intentioned
and useful lies, but that is another question, and it requires first admitting
that something IS a lie. If we wanted a Straussian President, we'd have had
Cheney stay on.
What about the "young people" who
are eager to reject Islam and everything it stands for, young people in Iran
who are in prisons being tortured at this moment? Why not address them, look
out for them, and defend them. I suppose they are among those "eager
to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress"?
Actually, their empowerment is the only way to progress, and at least in Iran,
there are enough of them to actually bring about such progress, if only THEY
are supported - rather than the Saudi "interfaith" dialogue.
But Obama wants to see "Islamic democracies"
in the Middle East, not undemocratic Secular Republics that protect individual
liberties at any cost to an oppressive majority. Obama wants reform of the
Islamic Republic of Iran (a government that has been stoning "immoral"
women and children for 30 years), not a radically secular liberty-promoting
revolution in Iran that would do worse to Islam than the French Revolution
did to Christians (and Catholics in particular) during the brief reign of
the "Cult of Reason".
Obama does not want a real beacon of liberty
to arise in the Islamic world, because, that would mean war with the Islamic
world - from within. That brings us to the next and final passage…
…
Obama:
It is easier to start wars than to end them.
It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different
about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right
path, not just the easy path.
Zartosht:
Can't it be that sometimes, the "right
path" is to admit irreconcilable conflict and the "easy path"
is to attempt to whitewash differences to such an extent that one completely
compromises one's integrity and collapses any last shred of distinction between
"truth" and "untruth". Granted, 'reality' is NOT black
and white. You might not suspect that you are reading the writings of a kind
of pragmatist. However, Islam DOES see the world in black and white - absolute
Good and absolute Evil - the Dar-al-Islam (the Realm of Islam) and Dar-al-Harb
(the Realm of War, meaning, of the conquest of non-Muslims). To deny that
is not pragmatism - it is a delusion that leads to a dangerous policy of appeasement.
One must understand the enemy on his own terms.
Obama:
There is also one rule that lies at the heart
of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that
isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's
a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in
the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought
me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek,
but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what
has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind!
We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and
tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the
Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are
the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together
in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on
Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Zartosht:
"The whole of the Torah is for the purpose
of promoting peace." What about the divinely ordained Jewish holocaust
of the Canaanites, the native inhabitants of what became "Israel"
- the Lord's War in the Book of Joshua? What about Moses' slaughter of 3,000
men, women, and children, simply for their having carried out peaceful pagan
rites to a golden calf? Or the Holy Wars of the general, Muhammad, to spread
Islam by force in his own day?
Islam is not compatible with the Golden Rule.
This is clear from verse (48:29) that says: "Muhammad is the messenger
of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against Unbelievers, (but)
compassionate amongst each other." The Quran is full of verses such as
this that encourage the believers to treat the non believers harshly and mistreat
them. See this article.
All indications from the gospels are that
Jesus was a pacifist. (And don't quote the "bring a sword" passage
- anyone who actually reads it will see that it is referring to a true believer's
alienation from his or her family members.) Whether Jesus' teachings square
with Judaism before him, or Islam after him is another question altogether!
There is a defensible scholarly view that Jesus was a Gnostic teacher who
rejected Judaism, and that canonical Christianity and Islam have perverted
Jesus' message and assimilated him into the Abrahamic tradition that he preached
against.
This is NOT a modern or post-modern view.
It was the view of the Manichean Mazdakites and Neo-Mazdakites in Iran just
before and after the Islamic conquest (c. 700 ad). It was also the view of
the Cathars, the Bogomils, and other Christian Gnostics in Medieval Europe.
The Mazdakites, and other entirely pacifistic and defenseless Iranian Manicheans,
were massacred by Muslims (except for those who pretended to be "esoteric
Muslims" and planted the seeds for "Sufism"). The Catholic
Inquisition was founded not initially to persecute Jews or Muslims, but to
exterminate the Cathars and other Christian Gnostics in the south of France
and South-eastern Europe.
Obama wants to collapse all of the distinctions
of the Abrahamic religions into one whitewashed peace-loving pill that he
expects the Islamic world (and we, in the west) to swallow. That has been
tried. It's called the "Baha'i Faith". While well intentioned, it
certainly did not go over well in the Islamic world. In Iran, where it originated,
Bahais are executed for their beliefs, and their graves have even been dug
up and overturned. The religion was forced into exile. No Islamic nation would
accept them, essentially because - though they whitewash and honor Muhammad
- they believe that the Quran - as it stands - is not the final word. They
are now based in Haifa, Israel - the country that the Islamic Republic of
Iran's president has vowed to "wipe off" the map of the world.
