Before I get into tonight’s main topic, two things need to be said:
|1.||There is no way to determine whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. At least not yet.|
|2.||What difference, at this point, does it make?
As has often been noted, whenever President Obama enacts policies that affects Muslims, his decisions always favor Muslims. Always.
So, for all practical purposes, we may consider him a Muslim.
And every now and then he does or says something that functions as what the defense policy analysts might call an “indicator”. One such tell emerged yesterday when Mr. Obama voiced his thoughts about the terror attacks in Brussels:
“The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium and we stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people,” Obama said.
For those who follow the Great Jihad closely, one word in that sentence leaps out: innocent. Why “innocent”? It’s a peculiar turn of phrase, if you think about it. A political leader might be expected to refer to the victims as “civilians”. But “innocent”? Is there a way that the dead and wounded could somehow be considered “guilty”?
Actually, there is: they could be non-Muslims. If you are a Muslim, and you obey Islamic law, then you believe the “murder of innocents” means “to kill Muslims without just cause”.
So there were presumably Muslims among the dead and wounded yesterday in Brussels — those were the “innocent people”.
This is the standard formula used by Muslim spokesmen after any Islamic terror attack: “We condemn all forms of terrorism. Islam forbids the killing of innocent people.” This is what you hear from CAIR, the OIC, the MCB, etc. When they say “innocent”, it’s a code word for “Muslim”.
Was Barack Hussein Obama using the word that way? There’s no way for us to tell, of course; it’s just another data point. And a lot of similar data points have accumulated over the past seven years.
The following summary is drawn from a comprehensive analysis of Islamic law by Maj. Stephen Coughlin.
There are certain terms of art that have variant meanings under Islam. Sometimes their use is dishonest, but not always. Islam is a religion of peace. Peace in Islam comes from submission to Islam, so when do you have true peace? When the entire world has been brought under Islamic law. There is an Islamic requirement to bring peace to the world, but when peace has been brought to the whole world, it means the whole world is now under the rule of Dar al-Islam. Muslims have a different understanding of “peace” than we do, but within the context of Islamic law, it makes complete sense.
Brigadier S. K. Malik’s important work The Quranic Concept of War was published in English in 1979. Malik was a serving brigadier general in the Pakistani Army. The then-chief of staff of the army, Zia ul-Haq, said the book would server as the army’s doctrine. So Gen. Malik’s work was more than just his opinion; it contained the operational guidelines for the Pakistani military.
When Gen. Malik talks about the Quranic concept of war (pp 57-58), he includes the four following quotes from the Koran to make his point.
I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (Qur’an 8: 12)
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers. (Qur’an 3: 151)
And those of the People of the Book who aided them, Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners [the women and the children]. And he made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things. (Qur’an 33: 26-27)
Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the Godly): they will never frustrate them. Against them make ready your strength of the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. (Qur’an 8:56-60)
Given that Allah “made you heirs of their lands…and of a land which ye had not frequented”, it could hardly be said that Mohammed and his followers were engaged in defensive warfare. On the contrary, the forces of Islam mounted an offensive and conquered another tribe or group.
It is well-established that this revelation is associated with the conquest of a Jewish tribe known as the Banu Qurayza. All the men were beheaded, the women and children were taken into custody, and the land was confiscated.
In the final citation, Allah strikes terror “into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah any your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” When someone insists that Islam does not permit the killing of noncombatants, we need to remember this verse.
Interestingly enough, the argument can be made that Islam defines “noncombatants” as innocent Muslims. The infidel’s status is harbi, “enemy”, because he comes from the territory of war. Therefore, according to the inexorable logic of these Koranic verses — the uncreated word of Allah — there is no such thing as a noncombatant infidel. All non-Muslims in Dar al-Harb are enemies, and the believer may and should strike terror into their hearts and kill them when necessary.
Based on the above citations from the Koran, Brigadier General S. K. Malik concludes:
TERROR struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means; it is an end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. TERROR is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.
So Malik concludes that the Quranic concept of war is terror, with four quotes from the Koran to back up his argument. On page 60, the last paragraph of the last page of the same chapter is very important:
Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent. … To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, it is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror.
The object of jihad is therefore the destruction of faith. It aims to destroy our faith in our God, in our government, in our legal system, in our entire world.
Once we lose faith in our world, we become subject to Dawah — an mission of outreach to convert to Islam.
|1.||The Quranic Concept of War by Brigadier S.K. Malik, (Lahore, Pakistan: Wajid Al’s Ltd., 1979. (with a forward by General Zia-ul-Haq) (This paper relies on the 1986 First Indian Reprint), 57, 58. Cited hereafter as S.K. Malik.|
|2.||Al-Hafiz Abu al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir Al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, Trans. Abdul-Malik Mujahid. (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2000), 670.|
|3.||S.K. Malik, 59.|
|4.||S.K. Malik, 60.|
Barry Hussein could not be a Muslim — that would require him to venerate something besides himself. Still, his Islamophilia can lead one to that conclusion.
Very good. I’m pleased that such an authority as Maj. Coughlin read the same pragmatic text of Mr Malik’s as me and came to the same conclusion. Terror is the desired state for us so that we submit. This has worked well for 1400 years or so, it will probably continue to do so for the unaware. Those of us with a Christian Faith are somewhat prepared for this as we are warned that everything that can be shaken will be shaken – Hag 2.21.
Religion of peace. Indeed.
Do not forget the absurd presidential praise for the Muslim “clock” boy or the obscuring of Christian icons when he made a recent speech!
Even if he isn’t, a Muslim ( which I believe him to be) he was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim household, so hardly likely to have been directed towards the tenets of Christianty. He deserves To go down in history as the worst President in American History either way! Much was and is made of him being the first Black American President which is spurious to say the least as his mother was a (left wing) Caucasian so genetically he is mixed race.
You’re reading too much into this. ‘Innocent bystanders’ is a stock phrase used in almost every terrorist attack, from the IRA through Baader-Meinhoff and ETA. It really does have nothing to do with Islam.
It’s interesting though that in his very readable 400-page autobiography Dreams from my Father, Obama somehow neglects to mention both (a) what country he was born in and (b) what religion he was born into. He leaves it all open and vague. What he does not leave vague is his allegiance. Although only half-black–and son of an African tribal leader, not descendant of American slaves–Obama identifies entirely and exclusively with black Americans and sees whites as the enemy. (The book was written before his political career took off.)
What Mr. Obama meant by the phrase is open to question.
But not what the OIC and CAIR mean by “innocent” when they formulate their statements. Those press releases and statements by spokesmen are crafted very carefully. Each word is chosen for a reason, and the word “innocent” means something different to Muslims than it does to the kuffar (as does “justice” and numerous others). Its use in such statements is an instance of kitman, or sacred indirection — language that intentionally leads a kafir to draw the wrong conclusion.
I found Mr. Obama’s use of the phrase to be notable, that’s all. An interesting data point. I have no way of knowing what he intended.
I wonder if he has those Dr. Strangelove moments where his white half tries to choke his black half.
In the past week I posted somewhere a comment on the innocent term. I hear it so much that it really means there is a category of people that deserve fate they are given. All of these laws are nations of laws. Self defense is typically they only situation where you can kill someone. So whether someone is innocent or not – the terrorist has no authority to execute them in those countries. The innocent bystander term is a qualifier for honest deceit – deceit with out lying. That is the kind it is easiest to get the most passionate about.
The only Christian to have been educated at a Madrassa, apparently…
It reminds me of French PM Raymond Barre’s statement after the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing (in the Copernic street). He then declared that “This odious bombing wanted to strike Jews who were going to the synagogue and it hit innocent French people who crossed the Copernic street”. A mere blunder, a Freudian slip or something else? Regarding Mr Barre, I would lean toward the former. As to Mr Obama’s phrase, all bets are off.
It’s either taqiyya, or heresy, on his part; or Jarrett’s.
They have already destroyed faith in our Govts and legal systems.
Not very complicated to determine if Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim, his supposed fathers were muslim, his formative years reveals education in the Islamic ways, in his operation as POTUS, he seems to share an overwhelming sympathy for the muslim causes, and acts just the opposite in always seeming to find distain for the actions and ways for the people of the book. His Jihad over the American republic is pretty darn obvious if you just open your mind to the possibility that progressive liberals in America had finally found a person of color amongst the ranks to be their political champion who actually had the potential to relieve a significant amount of what has been referred to as liberal white guilt, yes I think he his a muslim and I think the average muslim if being completely honest would agree. I was wondering what the Koran or the Hadith says about Muslim “actors” if acting out in Jihad while wearing your disguise so as to keep your true identity, purpose and actions hidden from the infidel, kinda like the trojan horse everyone takes about.
in the Stephanopoulos interview, Obama referred in no uncertain terms to his “Muslim faith”, and only walked it back after being “corrected” by steffie. This was, of course, a Freudian Slip: when one tells an insistent truth which you meant not to tell. That said, Zero and the St. Dept. Zionists have destroyed 5 Muslim countries, killed Muslims by the hundred thousand, and destroyed the lives of millions. I worry less about the Muslims than the Judeo-globalist bankers and their captive (see: debt) American/European political classes who have opened up our borders to Islamic…and other hostile ethno-invasions
Not many Zionists in the State Department……
Dymphna/Baron, my initial reply to this [epithet], which you no doubt appropriately did not publish, was motivated by my sense that trying to argue a Jew-hater out of his Jew-hatred is like trying to argue a pedophile out of his pedophilia. Please consider responding personally to the comments of Jew-haters, if you do not wish to exclude them from your comments-list as you excluded my own too-flippant response. Jew-haters will ruin your website and, if allowed to infiltrate and appropriate the anti-islamic resistance, will destroy the West’s last hope.
Jew-haters will not ruin this website, because I will not tolerate the extreme forms of their discourse. But I cannot delete all comments by people who criticize Jews, even if some of their criticisms are wrong-headed.
Being a philo-Semite myself, I find the nasty remarks of people who are obsessed with Jews, Jewish conspiracies, and Israel to be quite unpleasant. But I can’t require everyone to like Jews, and some criticisms of Jews are valid and need to be aired — for example, the statements by progressive Jewish organizations in the USA and Europe that demonize European nationalists.
Nevertheless, I delete every comment that violates our guidelines. I’m generally tolerant of differences of opinion, but there are limits to amount and type of invective I will permit.
The above is true of other groups targeted by invective, not just Jews. I’ve had to delete any number of nasty comments by Jews about Europeans, and many insulting comments by one or another European national about other European nationals.
It seems that we, the people of the West, are obsessed with cutting one another down even as Islam moves in for the kill. It’s very sad.
Don’t you think that the elite have deliberately engineered a set of circumstances where the natural anger and frustration of native peoples can have an outlet – they can call one another ‘racists’ and ‘islamophobes’ and so forth and they are told that such hatred is legitimate and righteous – in fact they must experience this hatred in order to be a ‘good’ citizen.
That is to say, the power elite have constructed a system which generates all that emotional energy, but instead of using it for useful purposes (to tear down the utopian fantasy and throw the elite who insist on trying to bring that fantasy about here on earth out into the street) the only acceptable outlet for that energy is to call people ‘racists’ etc.
Quo, I think such “tribal” instincts are endemic to humanity. It is a credit to the Judeo-Christian West (and an excellent reason for preserving it for posterity) that we are less afflicted with such hatreds than any other culture I’m aware of.
If you are not Muslim then you are not an innocent.
To quote Anjem Choudhury: “…when we say innocent people we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam, and as far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.”
See article on Daniel Pipes from 2005: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/08/can-infidels-be-innocents
I believe that Obama is an atheist in terms of religion. He is, however, a cultural Muslim. Raised in a Muslim country and growing up admiring his Muslim father and grandfather – he thinks like a Muslim and instinctively sides with them.
That’s pretty much what I said on this site a few months ago: It doesn’t matter whether Obama *is* Muslim or not b/c his actions show that he favors Islam over Christianity whenever he has a choice.
“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act.” (Matthew 7:15-16 NLT)
The less learned ones say the innocent or innocents not innocent civilians. Whenever I hear the word innocent I know I am listening to someone who either thinks I don’t hear what they are saying and is saying it for the naive.
In the remaining months of his rain (sic) he can do a lot of damage.
Why did I think of Slayer just now …. the first album of theirs I ever heard, all those years ago now … raining blood, from a lacerated sky, bleeding its horror … creating my structure … now I will reign in blood.
In fact the more Slayer lyrics I think of, the more they can be applied to Barry Soetoro.
Slayer – Raining Blood.
I can see Obama walking to the stage in a packed hall, the music from 2min30 to 3min 50 coming through the speakers, and all his believers going crazy with adulation and worship of their beloved Fuehrer …
Yes, here it is, in the Hadith, I knew it was here, these Islamic devils in Obama’s gang are not so clever as they may credit themselves.
Islam and jihad
8) The principle of al-Taqiyya
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.”
– Hadith 5.59.369
“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”
— Abu Hammid Ghazali
He is Muslim,and that was said accidentantly, in the Greek parliament ,by the minister (of the Public Order) Mr Chrisohoides a few years ago.
Don’t forget that when Obama took office,his first visit was to the king of Saudi Arabia,and i remember well how he bowed to the king,something that seemed to me very unseemly for the President of a Super power.
And remember how his press secretary tried to cover up for that!
Oooooh, good call. I had forgotten that KSA was the *first* port of call on that tour of the Mideast (which, BTW, excluded Israel).
Predictably, Baron has hit the nail on the head. Anyone who is naive enough to believe in Western fairy tales about being congenial with Muslims owes it to him/herself to read the above-referenced tome by Stephen Coughlin. It is immensely clarifying, for it makes clear that the starting point for Koranic Muslims is the uncompromisable belief that anyone not a Muslim is a being in a wholly different category. Therefore, a Muslim cannot regard the killing of a nonMuslim any differently than killing a chicken, or a snake. (Or, if you will, a pig or an ape.) As the Koran and the hadith offers no latitude for debate on this subject, by definition those Muslims who aspire to encourage reinterpretation of the Koran, which has been determined to be incontrovertible for more than a millenium, are apostates, and subject to assassination. To believe there are grounds for “negotiation” regarding aspirations and methods of Muslims is to engage in suicidal self-delusion. Until the civilized world puts aside its fantasies about the reasonableness of all men, and comes to realize that Muslim thought is categorically different from Western enlightenment and makes no allowance for accommodation, will the civilized world undertake the uncompromising confrontation and conflict that holds any hope of survival for liberal thought.
The Muslim-in-Chief is proficient in the Islamic use of double meanings, taqiyya, kitman and tawyira. Baron, it was kind of you to point out the use of innocents meaning Muslims are the innocents.
Of course, the kufars are nothing but refuse and can be killed without bothering the conscience of the superior peoples.
Of course, I will fight to the death to defeat this Satanic cult. This is spiritual warfare as well as physical warfare and America is not yet aware that Islam is indeed invading our country with a view to colonizing and destroying our way of life for theirs.
One of the most insidious and dangers aspects of the war being waged is that one is not supposed to cricicize the doctrines of islam.
At an individual level, the problem here is that each of us has the ability to assign meaning to our own lives. And this is the one thing that the power-hungry maniacs running the world don’t want us to be able to do.
We each have the right to change religion, should we decide to do so. (See the work of the UN Special Rapporteurs on this subject.) As John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, we need to hear different opinions in order to consider them properly. So having religious beliefs criticised by people who really don’t believe them is a necessary condition of being able to change one’s religious beliefs. It follows that by preventing legitimate criticism of the doctrines of Islam, the powers-that-be are denying people their human right to change religious beliefs.
They are also preventing people – free, sentient beings – from assigning meaning to their own lives, and if we all remember for a moment that we are only hear for a brief span, and this is the one most important thing we can do when we’re here, the underlying and decidedly sinister aspect of what is happening in the world today becomes clearer.
Barack Obama is not innocent, it is a conscious agent who does. Innocent are those who believe in their ingenuity. I believe it is not an exception, but that several other leaders also have this Machiavellian mentality he has.
Machiavelli wanted Florence to prosper, and in The Prince, he describes how previous rulers ‘bent the rules’ of morality – out of necessity – so that their own people will benefit in the long run. (In other words, a consequentialist position: the means justify the end. But … to what end?]
“His [Machiavelli’s] vision is social and political. Hence the traditional view of him as simply a specialist on how to get the better of others, a vulgar cynic who says that Sunday school precepts are all very well, but in a world full of evil men you too must lie, kill and so on, if you are to get some-where, is incorrect. The philosophy summarised by ‘eat or be eaten, beat or be beaten’ – the kind of wordly wisdom to be found in, say, Mazzeil or Giovanni Morelli? with whom he has been compared – is not what is central in him. Machiavelli is not specially concerned with the opportunism of ambitious individuals ; the ideal before his eyes is a shining vision of Florence or of Italy j in this respect he is a typically impassioned humanist of the Renaissance, save that his ideal is not artistic or cultural but political, unless the state – or regenerated Italy- is considered, in Burckhardt’s sense, as an artistic goal.
… Machiavelli’s values, I should like to repeat, are not instrumental but moral and ultimate, and he calls for great sacrifices in their name.
… His purpose is not to leave unchanged or to reproduce this kind of [corrupt] life, but to lift it to a new plane, to rescue Italy from squalor and slavery, to restore her to health and sanity.”
Berlin, The Originality of Machiavelli.
I would argue that Machiavelli’s advice was that a ruler with virtu would act in ways that conflicted with traditional (particularly classical) morality only on occasions when it was necessary (Agathacles was not included in the pantheon of great rulers, remember) and it would result in a long term good for his people.
Obama’s goal is not to make his country great and see his people prosper. That is the last thing he wants. America is no more special than Greece, remember. So he is in an important sense, anti-Machiavellian.
My quote of “Machiavellianism” is just a way of speaking.
If our leaders actually were operating according to Machiavellian principles, the world would be a better place!
I’ve always taken The Prince to be primarily a descriptive document, in that Machaivelli provides many examples of real people who behaved a certain way in the real world, and actually achieved certain (desirable) results.
Yes, he advises his readers to emulate these examples, and that means doing what is ‘not good’ when it is necessary.
But maybe it could be said that according to Machiavelli, there are a set of necessary conditions which must obtain in order for a leader with virtu to act in a way that is ‘not good’ – and for them to be able to justify their actions.
Those conditions are not present when Soetoro does that which is ‘not good’.
And Soetoro is using those means to serve an evil end!
The worst of all possible worlds!
It is a way of speaking ¬_¬ “
I know, but using that expression as a jumping off point, it is interesting to think a little bit about this.
Oh really! You are who you should think a little. You do not know what manner of speaking? A dictionary is enough to show that it is a way of speaking only. You want attention, only that. Stop it and grow.
All good parents are Machiavellian, as is God. Otherwise, don’t try to be Machiavellian if you don’t know what you’re doing. That’s why our religions don’t allow for it and leaders who lay such plans do so at their peril. Look where it got Ted Cruz. I believe former lefties, criminals, abused people etc. are the best strategisers. Because there are actual neural pathways that can be utilised as well as the ability to identify with the enemy. Although studying Islam is the next best thing. The achillies heel of the evil forces in the world rising so brazen today is that they don’t know how good works. I don’t see the need to lay any grand Machiavillian plans at this stage. The light will expose them for what they are and they will fall.
I’m not interested in your amateur attempts at psychology. I suggest you keep that [redacted] to yourself, because it speaks only to your own state of mind, no one else’s.
The fact is, the term ‘Machiavellian’ has been misused, and is still being misused today. This is important because a familiarity with what Machiavelli actually said & actually stood for may help us to understand the nature of the political elite today.
The Great Courses: Machiavelli in Context. That is quite a decent set of lectures, and they’re reduced in price just now, as it happens.
This is an interesting subject, and well worth spending some time on. Give those lectures a bash & you’ll see what I mean.
(In addition, there is a decent translation of The Prince out just now as part of the Penguin Classics collection.)
Let’s have another crack at this: What I was driving at was that Obama does not want to see America in a condition of health and sanity, rather than he wants to bring her down into squalor and slavery. In this respect, the end to which Machiavelli was striving is definitely not one that Barry Soetoro believes in.
In addition, Machiavelli stated clearly at the opening of Chapter 15 of The Prince that he was not writing about, nor did he have any time for, airy-fairy nonsense about societies and states that did not exist, and never would exist. He deals in reality. Soetoro is clearly different in this respect too.
Finally, Machiavelli makes it very clear that a ruler with virtu will only do what is ‘not good’ out of necessity. That is to say, they may do something that is ‘not good’ when doing nothing at all (that is to say, leaving the situation to deteriorate) would have even worse long term consequences. Soetoro just can’t stop himself from interfering and making things worse than they were before. Just look at the state of the world today – is is better or worse than it was when Soetoro took office?
And here we are back at the moral yardstick used to make such judgements: Actions are judged ‘good’ by Machiavelli if they serve a particular goal: the long term prosperity of his own people and his own country. Only if that goal is being served, and only if the situation demands it, would a leader with virtu consider doing something that is ‘not good’.
Soetoro has no such limitations, no such goals. Just like Agathocles, the deeds of Soetoro ‘do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men’.
Just put a hidden camera in the Oval Office and we’ll see if he’s a muslim or not. What would be better than to show your total disdain for a country and sending a big F.U. by “praying” in the Oval Office..
Instruction manuals such as this one written by the paklander could be seen as the muslim Achilles heel in that if it works against muslim enemies then it must also work against muslims themselves. Those who we pay to protect and defend our countries need to adopt the same manual as their battle plan and implement it vigorously against the muslim enemy.