Obama, the Muslim Thing and why it Matters

Muslim in the White House?

The thing is you can't be a leader and not know what Islam means. The average Joe pumping gas on route 66 ? Ok, not on top of the issue. But there is NO WAY you can be running for POS and not know the hell being wreaked on the free and not so free world by Islamic jihad. That said, this man went to a madrassa in Jakarta. A madrassa in a Muslim country - whether he was devout or secular he knows what was taught. He knows what is in that book, the Koran...... Even if he is ambiguous, he knows the stakes involved. His father was a Muslim who took three wives (without divorcing). His stepfather and close members of his family are devout Muslims.  Not an unimportant influence.

Every Muslim that left Islam is very definitive about leaving and why. They are quite vocal - Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Elijah Abraham etc  ..... if he left Islam Obama MUST have very definite thoughts about it. He has to.  He practiced Islam. That is not benign. It's big - and even if, as inferred by big media, it was not big to him, he can still appreciate how important it is knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy.

And he would have had to make a decision to reject Islam. When did he make that decision? How? Why the silence? Why the reluctance to talk about it?

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. Have there been calls for his death? If not, why? Islam gives no free passes.

His posture on this is hard to define or understand. Because it is a critical is issue.

Transitional issues facing this nation and the world at large - the world at war, creeping sharia, the perversion of the rights of free men, individuals, women etc hang in the balance on the make up, the very DNA of our next President of the United States. The stakes could not be higher domestically.

On foreign policy, Europe has laid down. The political elites have capitulated to Islamists and multiculturalists. Suicide. It seems unclear that they could hold up their end if America did the heavy lifting.

As far as Israel is concerned if he makes it to the big house,  Israel is screwed. Finished.  Obama's   church and Jew hating pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, makes that self evident. Israel is on its own and perhaps that is necessary because it seems they have relinquished their sovereignty to the US and they expect the US to guarantee their security. Aint never gonna happen. No country, ever, should abdicate it's role to protect and defend itself. Olmert is on a one way trip to nowhere. So maybe tough love is necessary because this relationship is hurting Israel.

The recent revelations of Obama's ties to Odinga in Kenya are disconcerting as well because Odinga is behind the terrible violence and it was he that instigated bloody riots and killing after he lost the election. Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge."  And while there are few angels in Kenya, Odinga is the source of great unrest and turmoil and the MOU he signed with the Muslim council to institute sharia is a foreshadowing to  dark fate for Kenya.  A Jacksonian picked up on my previous post on this and wrote a lengthy, well researched piece on the politics and back story (s) on Odinga. Just how quickly will Kenya go Islamic?

We must be allowed to ask these questions. I do not embrace change for the sake of change - the impossible new buzzword on the campaign trail. Jimmy Carter was the dark horse, the new unknown and he was an unmitigated disaster. The worst, most damaging President in US history IMAO.

This could be worse. And so I implore my fellow Americans to question, question, question. The potential damage to this country is incalucable.

These are dangerous times my friends, reckless and capricious intellectual laziness will have disastrous consequences.

The emes.

UPDATE: video hat tip mono

I am showing this vidclip of a snippet of a speech Obama gave because it shows at least one (self-identified) Muslim thinks Obama is one of them. I doubt that this radicalized Muskim is alone in that belief.

Comments

[Rebel Radius]

I consider this to be one of the most critical posts you have written and indeed you have written it well, Pamela.

Good questions. All Americans should be seeking and critiquing subsequent answers!

[Tracy]

Oh, Pamela. You're such a tool.

The Muslim angle has been so thoroughly debunked:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html

But hey, he was eight years old, so obviously, he was marked forever. He also attended a Catholic school, so he must be Catholic as well.

Just put down the paint thinner and walk away.

[RISE_UP]

Great post Pamela.I agree with all you have said. Which is why, though I am not a Hillary fan, I feel a chill in my soul to see Obama slip past her. However, Iowa,NH are not the guts of America. And I guarantee you this muslim thing will be put out there if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. In my opinion, obama is a muslim sheep in wolves clothing. And I will never vote for anyone who has muslims in their family tree.

[RISE_UP]

a muslim WOLF in SHEEPs'clothing for god sakes

[Bruce Wechsler]

Tracy: Trusting a single source, and CNN no less, as a thorough debunking of an issue with such large potential consequences reeks more of paint thinner inhalation than the prudent advice to "question, question, question".

Do you see a harm in asking these questions (in particular, directly to the candidate himself) rather than just relying on one MSM outlet's research that did not include direct questions of the subject)?

[Tracy]

Bruce,

The AP and ABC also debunked it:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070124-1317-obama-2008.html
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2822061

As did an urban legends site:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

But, since it's clear that the hostess of this isn't letting little things like facts get in the way of what she wants to believe, I guess you won't, either.

[Jane]

Don't AP & ABC support the right? If so, isn't it possible that their stories are skewed? Have portions of these two media sources been bought up by the Saudis like Fox has? If so, isn't it possible that the Obama Muslim story is being kept under wraps? Didn't AP get into trouble for false reporting about civilian deaths during the latest war Israel had with Lebanon? Consequently, Tracy it is entirely possible that your sources are guilty of what you are charging Pam with - not letting little things like facts get in the way of what they want to believe.

The truth is that Obama is Muslim. Islam does not permit one to leave the faith. Under Islam's laws he must have the religion of his Father. The fact that Obama has not been open about his Islamic history indicates that he is trying to hide these facts. His relationships with Islam are legitimate cause for concern.

He must be a charming fellow because he has been able to skirt this issue and his supporters don't seem to care. Obviously, individuals such as yourself have bought the charm - hook, line and sinker instead of seeking the truth.

Just curious Tracy - does his association with a Church that has anti-Semitic leanings bother you at all? Are you as passionate about discrimination against Jews as you are for Obama?

[DemocracyRules]

Pamela, here is another hateful honor killing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506822&in_page_id=1770

Or reassemble this on the URL line--

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages/live/articles/news/
news.html?in_article_
id=506822&in_page_id=1770

Your piece about honor killings was compelling, and very important.
Pro Patria

[FASTAC 6]

Pamela-
You get so excited over nothing. Barak is a nice church-going young man who denies that having a muslim father and step-father and attending an islamic parochial school ever meant HE was a moslem.
BTW- I'm ordering new prayer rugs- do you have a color preference?

/tag- for 'Tracy' and other equally dense readers

[SalamiBaloney]

Jane- excellent post. Tracy is, well, speechless. Must be those 'little things called facts' or the paint thinner.

[Pamela Geller]

Thanks Democracy, I added it to the post this morning. Horror after horror.

I will continue to add the victims. It was the hardest post to put together. What I see in those girls faces ..... is myself.

[songdongnigh]

This boils down to four questions:

Do 1.5 billion Muslims think Obama is a Muslim?
Will they expect him to act as one?
What will they do if he does not?
What will we do if he does?

Of all the nightmares of Hillary as president, they're nothing compared to Obama as president.

[Pamela Geller]

Hey guys, I'd like to get as many eyes on this as possible.
Vote for this post at Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Scroll to reader submissions (bottom of page) and click vote
Thanks,
Pamela

[VTpolitician]

Wow... How backwards are some of you people? Separation of church and state. Think about this. Obama respects all faith. All religion has advocated violence at one point or another. Have you even read the Old Testament? Obviously Senator Obama is not a member of the radical extremists group that practice a physical jihad. For you to disrespect his religion for political issues makes all the informed voters think you're immature idiots. When it comes to you sitting there wondering why nobody is making a deal about this, or why it is being covered up, find the simple answer. ITS NOT A BIG DEAL. THERE IS NOTHING TO COVER UP. RCP bloggers... Start talking about real issues or just shut up.

[jjmurphy]

Tracy & VTpolitician,

Here is a simple solution. Have a member of the MSM ask him point blank if he considers himself a muslim. Yes or no, no waffling! If not, why.

Listen to the answer.

Sondongnigh makes an excellent point, as well. Does Islam consider him a muslim? Apparently it does.

Add to it the fact that he is raging liberal/socialist. If he wins the presidency stick a fork in us, cause we're done!

[Jane]

VTpolitician: Where have you been since 911? Have you not witnessed the increasing encroachment of Islam throughout the west? There is a problem with Islam - IN EVERY SINGLE WESTERN DEMOCRACY and not just with the radicals.

Even prior to 911 Islam influenced American policy. Clinton/Kosovo - don't you think there is something wrong with that picture? Or do you believe that it was OK for the U.S. President and NATO to destroy a predominately Christian region, and assist in the slaughter, rape, and torture of Christians in the area so that it could be run by Islamists?

How about Bush and his dirty relationship with the Saudis? Don't you think that Bush has harmed innocent people in both foreign and domestic affairs because of his tawdry relationship with the House of Saud? If Islam has had such a strong influence on "Christian" leaders, just what do you think the impact will be with an individual who is Muslim?

You say Obama respects all faith. How do you know that? If he is aligned with an anti-Semitic Church, then what will happen to Jews with his presence in the White House? It's bad enough with Bush because of his relationship with his anti-Semitic pals the Saudis. I can't begin to imagine the impact on Jewish life with a President like Obama. Nor can I imagine what life will be like for Christians with Obama as President if he is using Christianity to get into the White House, but is really aligned to Islam.

If Obama has left Islam why isn't the Muslim world rioting in the streets calling for his death, as they do with every other apostate? Could it be that he serves a useful purpose for them? Is he part of a long term plan?

People like you assist in the destruction of the west because of your misguided and naive beliefs that Islam poses no threat. Islam has already taken root in the White House. A President with strong familial ties to Islam may just be the straw that breaks the back of the U.S.

I believe that you are an immature idiot who still believes in the tooth fairy. You need to take a long hard look at the encroachment of Islam throughout the west. There isn't an institution that hasn't been altered by this ideology. Any further insertion of this barbaric religion into the American government, will be the end of life as we know it - including the freedom for people like you to tell others to shut up.

[chsw]

Obama was not educated by Wahhabis while in Indonesia. Huma Abedin was educated by Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. So in a choice of evils, Obama, who Daniel Pipes thinks might be considered a Muslim apostate with all of the concomitant risks, would be the lesser evil.

Now, on NH's primary tonight -

Having worked for Dem machines in both MD and Chicago, I was immediately suspicious when I heard that polling stations had run out of ballots by late morning. Perhaps the stock of ballots had been previously filled in. Or, perhaps some people were taking advantage of NH's permissive motor-voter law.

Does anyone know whether there are chads on NH ballots?

chsw

[Jane]

Duncan - You don't have much to offer in a political debate if the only words you can utter are to malign Pam's character and the existence of her soul. That didn't take much effort or thought on your part. Why don't you try communicating like an adult instead of resorting to school yard tactics?

[VTpolitician]

You have such a closed view to true separation of church and state. I am no believer of the tooth fairy but a faithful follower of reason. You think you're so smart because you can point out problems with a religion? For "Christ Sakes" check Christianity out, Any religion will serve as a means for a government take over (i.e. the crusades.) but in a non-biased world, it's the person who matters. Jane, you use words such as "encroachment", but your not even referring to anything that can encroach. It's the people and the soul, not the religion that "encroaches". There are peaceful, loving, and smart Muslims. For you to brand every one as a terrorist is inviting people to think that you're the one who believes in unrealities such as the "tooth fairy."

[Jane]

VTpolitician - I don't brand every Muslim as a terrorist. Don't put words in my mouth. I know many peaceful, loving and smart Muslims. BUT until the problems are sorted out it is wise to be cautious. The following article is just for you. What we don't need is any more infiltration in any U.S. institutions - particularly the White House.

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington on 22:45:58 2008/01/08

A Purple Heart in war of ideas?

January 8, 2008

By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. - When the history of the George W. Bush administration is written, one of the most important questions to be addressed will surely be: Why did a president who repeatedly talked about the ideology animating our enemies in this "War on Terror" do so little to wage an effective "War of Ideas" against it?

The good news is that historians and the rest of us have just been given an insight into that highly consequential disconnect. The bad news is that the incident suggests a problem of such ominous proportions that it raises questions as to whether our government is being rendered incapable of fighting successfully an ideology best described as Islamofascism at home, to say nothing of abroad.

The incident involves the firing last week of the Pentagon's foremost authority on the Islamofascist theo-political-legal code known as Shariah. According to reporting by Bill Gertz, The Washington Times' intrepid national security correspondent, Stephen Coughlin, a major in the U.S. Army Reserves who has served as a civilian lawyer to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fell "afoul of a key aide to [Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon] England, Hasham Islam."

Unnamed Pentagon sources told Mr. Gertz that the latter, employed by the deputy secretary to help with Muslim outreach, "confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism." At issue evidently was Maj. Coughlin's fastidious chronicling of the true nature and activities of organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). In briefings prepared for the U.S. military, he had concluded that ISNA is one of a number of front organizations for the Muslim Brotherhood a particularly insidious wing of the Islamofascist movement that shares with its ideological soulmates a commitment to imposing Shariah worldwide, albeit putatively through nonviolent means.

Interestingly, the Justice Department arrived at a similar conclusion, as evidenced in its designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in the recent trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The latter operated as an Islamist "charity" in Houston until it was shut down by the government after September 11, 2001, and charged with providing funds to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization. While the lengthy proceeding resulted in a mistrial (due, it appears, to misconduct by a self-professed Hamas-sympathizing juror), documents placed in the record by prosecutors are damning with respect to connections between Saudi-financed influence operations like the ISNA and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the one hand and various bad actors around the globe on the other.

Evidently, however, the Islamic Society of North America is one of the organizations with whom Hasham Islam has encouraged Pentagon outreach. When Steve Coughlin refused to modify his assessment of the organization, Mr. Islam reportedly accused him of being "a Christian zealot with a pen." Such a description calls to mind the terms "racist" and "bigot" used to silence others who have raised alarms about efforts by the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow-travelers to penetrate our government and society.

Thus branded, Maj. Coughlin has become "too hot" for the Joint Chiefs and is now what Mr. Gertz calls "a casualty of the War of Ideas." Perhaps he will receive its first Purple Heart.

If allowed to stand, the effect of Maj. Coughlin's dismissal would be a surgical strike on a man who is arguably one of the most knowledgeable opponents of Shariah not only in the Defense Department, but inside the entire U.S. government.

Sadly, it was but the latest of a series of successes for our enemies in the undeclared war against Islamofascism, including the following:

Karen Hughes, President Bush's close friend and, until recently, his point-person in the War of Ideas as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, reportedly considered as her "guru" a professor at Georgetown University whose program is underwritten by a $20 million grant from a Saudi prince.

Unsurprisingly, Mrs. Hughes' first public appearance after assuming her responsibilities at State was an address to the annual ISNA conference in 2005. While there, she told the organization's members she considered them "the front-line in public diplomacy because you are more credible than I am." Interestingly, a survey of her "frontline" troops, found that, by a 3-to-1margin, ISNA's members believe the U.S. government had advanced knowledge of the September 11, 2001, attacks and allowed them to happen.

Muslim chaplains and lay leaders for the U.S. military were recruited, trained and credentialed by an organization that the Wall Street Journal described as "part of Saudi Arabia's state-run university system." At the time, that institute was operated by Aburahman Alamoudi, the godfather of the Islamist apparatus in America who is now serving a 23-year prison sentence for terrorism financing and related charges.

FBI personnel continue to receive "sensitivity training" from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, even though the Justice Department has also designated it an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

Many more examples of Islamist penetration and influence operations could be cited. Suffice it to say that, as long as such activities are allowed and those like Steve Coughlin who challenge them are fired or cowed neither Mr. Bush nor his successors will be able to properly comprehend, let alone prevail in, the War of Ideas and the larger War for the Free World of which it is a central front.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Who believes in the tooth fairy? You do!

[VTpolitician]

Once again, in this article they refer to "Islamic Extremism." I do agree with idea of being cautious and reviewing any candidate's background entirely. To say that he should not be our next President simply because he is a Muslim is a common fallacy known as guilt by association with a strong scent of non-sequitur. If this is all you have with your argument you should try more powerful rhetoric. He is not an Islamic Extremist. Innocent until proven guilty my friend. You fail to recognize that in you disqualifying him on that premise alone, sincerely jeopardizes the freedom that we give to our people to choose which religion they follow. I have read the constitution and I must have missed the part after, a native of the country, 35 years of age, and obtained a majority in the electoral college where it says you have to be a Christian to be Chief Executive. My mistake is still a small fraction compared with your's however. Much like your brain, I did not put any words in your mouth but simply see that you have a close minded view of the Islam nation as a whole. Cautious? Yes, but always free, and always American.

[VTpolitician]

Once again you are close minded to the true definition of church and state. Read your own article... It says "Islamic Extremists" Yes we should be cautious in reviewing any Presidential Candidates background. Saying Senator Obama shouldn't be in office because of that is a perfect example of a common fallacy known as guilt by association as well as an obvious non-sequitur. If you are so persistent on this topic at least use stronger rhetoric. You disqualifying him on that premise alone, sincerely jeopardizes the freedom that we give to our people to choose which religion they follow. I have read the constitution and I must have missed the part after, a native of the country, 35 years of age, and obtained a majority in the electoral college where it says you have to be a Christian to be Chief Executive. My mistake is still a small fraction compared with your's however. Much like your brain, I did not put any words in your mouth but simply see that you have a close minded view of the Islam nation as a whole. Cautious? Yes, but always free, and always American.

[Jane]

VTpolitician: "Yes, but always free, and always American." - Not for long considering the very determined efforts to undermine The Constitution, and bring America under a Caliphate. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts. I'm all for American pride - there's a lot to be proud of. However, American arrogance which translates into ego and a belief system that it will never happen in the U.S - is what will bring your country down because it is blinding individuals to the reality on the ground. Guaranteed. Thankfully there are individuals such as Pam, Spencer, TROP, Gates of Vienna, who are capable of facing the harsh reality and telling the truth.

Regarding close minded view of the Islam nation as a whole - please - a day doesn't pass where someone isn't brutally murdered, or threatened, or tortured, or sued at the hands of Islam. Good, warm and peaceful Muslims appear to be the exception not the rule. I didn't make the atrocities up - they are out there for everyone to see.

[VTpolitician]

Well for all of our freedom I do hope and pray as a Christian myself you are wrong and in my opinion you are. I have a belief that if you are wrong and he is what he says he is, He will help our country above any other candidate. A day also doesn't pass when an American doesn't kill someone. All of our societies and religions have evil sides. Please do not rule an amazing candidate for president out too quickly. This is what the extremists want. We can't let them affect our core values or ruin our chance to elect a strong leader or we will let them win. I am not blind or egoistic. I believe America could have a lot more to be proud of. I am cautious but at no point will I resort to there level and discriminate against another religion. Why would you?

[Jane]

VTpolitician: You said, "you are close minded to the true definition of church and state." I completely understand the definition and believe in that principle. Thank you for raising this point as it illustrates the risks and folly of having a Muslim President. If you truly understood Islam's religious doctrine, you would realize that church and state can never be achieved with a Muslim President. Islam is supreme above man made laws. Allah, and the Koran must always be the dominate force. These teachings cannot be compromised or altered. Consequently, a President who follows the teachings of Mohammed, would have no choice but to eradicate the principles of church and state that you value. The Koran would be guiding American lives, not The Constitution. Unless Islam goes through a monumental Reformation - the day a Muslim President moves into the White House - is the day that the America you know and love will cease to exist.

[VTpolitician]

There are different sects of all religions. There is a such thing as a different interpretation of the Koran. Not all or even a majority of Muslim's believe in a physical jihad, but a peaceful one. By the way, Christianity is also supposed to be above man's laws. We also believe in a God who killed millions when they didn't follow. By the way, and much more off topic, I liked your comments on abortion. It appears we do not disagree on everything.

[Shy Guy]

There are different sects of all religions. There is a such thing as a different interpretation of the Koran. Not all or even a majority of Muslim's believe in a physical jihad, but a peaceful one. By the way, Christianity is also supposed to be above man's laws. We also believe in a God who killed millions when they didn't follow. By the way, and much more off topic, I liked your comments on abortion. It appears we do not disagree on everything.

Posted by: VTpolitician | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 03:26 AM

You seem to be so certain and I have so many doubts. So could you devote a moment to answer these questions:

1. What are the major historical sects of Islam to which practicing Muslims today adhere to or associate with?

2. What does each sect's school of jurisprudence teach about the meaning of Jihad?

3. What percentage of Muslims practice any form of Jihad? Of those practicing Muslims, what percentage believe that Jihad is only (a keyword) a peaceful battle between one's inclinations and one's soul?

4. Does the god of Judaism or Christianity advocate killing myriads of disbelievers or subjugating them here and now? What about Allah?

You seem to know. Enlighten us.

[Shy Guy]

For "Christ Sakes" check Christianity out, Any religion will serve as a means for a government take over (i.e. the crusades.)

Posted by: VTpolitician | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 12:36 AM

When did the Crusades begin? Who initiated the first Crusade and for what purpose?

[iopsych]

An interesting sideline to this discussion, is one of PR within and outside of the US.

I have always found that Politics and voters are fickle, often being lead around by the MSM, and the message they are painting. For example, it was only yesterday prior to the primaries that Clinton was a gonner.

As such, I wonder what people think would be the Domestic Reaction and the International Reaction if more was made of Obama's middle name. I know that it seems petty, but Hussein is a pretty volatile name and symbolizes more than just Church and State considerations. If the MSM started to call him by his full name, I believe that could be a nail in his coffin. An unfair nail, but a nail nonetheless.

Just food for thought on a type of subtlety that could have domestic reaction, and international implications.

[Tracy]

"Jane- excellent post. Tracy is, well, speechless. Must be those 'little things called facts' or the paint thinner."

Actually, I have a life. But anyway.

My last comment is pulled directly from

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070123-debunked_insigh/index.php

"To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa."

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to wash the stench of hatred off.

[VTpolitician]

Lets see...
1. Major sects are Sunni and Shi'a,

2. Jihad- "to strive or struggle", Shi'a believe in a physical warfare practiced against Christian nations, but most muslims the Sunni believe in a mental struggle and a non-violent aspect of a greater Jihad, and a self struggle.

3.85% of the Islam nation are Sunni. The peaceful kind. The other 15% are the extremists.

4.No, but many people have killed in the name of our God too.

5.The first crusade was started by a man by the name of Pope Urban II. By and for Christians.

That concludes our class for today shyguy. If you need any more of those crazy things called facts, you can find them anywhere your willing to look.

[magrooder99]

The "logic" expressed in the post boggles the mind. The leaps from inaccurate premises to irrational conclusions permeate every sentence. God help us if many believe this drivel.

[RISE_UP]

When all else fails, pull out the race card. Pull out the bigot card, pull out the hate card.

[Shy Guy]

If you need any more of those crazy things called facts, you can find them anywhere your willing to look.

Posted by: VTpolitician | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Thanks for that advice. I did what you suggested and I found the following:

1. While Islam generally comes in two varieties, Sunni and Shi'ite, there are several theology branches within each. For example, Sunni Islam, which as you pointed out is what 85% of Muslims worldwide belong to, can be further subdivided to its four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence (madhahib): the Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Shafi’i.

2. If what you say is true, then how come jihad, defined as warfare against unbelievers in order to institute Sharia worldwide, is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology and not considered propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists? This defintion of Jihad is affirmed by all four principal schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence I previously mentioned, as well as of all the other schools.

These schools formulated laws regarding the importance of jihad and the ways in which it must be practiced, centuries ago. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 996), a Maliki jurist, declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution….[Unbelievers] have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”

Likewise, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), a Hanbali jurist who is a favorite of Osama bin Laden and other modern-day jihadists, taught: “Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

The Hanafi school sounds the same notes: “If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them…” (Hidayah)

The Shafi’i scholar Abu’l Hasan al-Mawardi (d. 1058 ) agrees, saying that if unbelievers “refuse to accept [Islam] after this, war is waged against them…”

All this is not merely of historical interest. A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.” This manual, ‘Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), after defining the “greater jihad” as “spiritual warfare against the lower self,” devotes eleven pages to the “lesser jihad.” It defines this jihad as “war against non-Muslims,” and spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms: “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Extremists? Propaganda? No, this is the Islamic mainstream. I've done what you suggested and this is all I could come up with.

3. Based on my looking around and discovering, above, that every Sunni school teaches contrary to your claims, how do you claim that Sunnis are the "peaceful kind"? Has the entire Sunni Islamic world rebeled against their own teachings? Are you saying that they are all apostates of their own religion?

4. But are today's non-Muslims killing in the name of god supported by their religion's theological scriptures, teachings or clerics? What about Islam? What is "sha'aria"? What do we do with the teachings of greater Jihad (the violent variety) that Muslims have been taught and are still are being taught as being their divine obligations here and today and everywhere worldwide? What is Dar al-harb? What are the laws of dhimmi and when and where do they apply?

5. But didn't Pope Urban II establish the 1st Crusade in response to the massive annihilation and destruction of the Byzantine Empire by Islamic Jihadist who had conquered otherwise peaceful lands throught Arabia, the Levant, Mesepotamia, India, N. Africa, the Balkans and even Southern Europe. (Here's a handy map. What was the Christian world supposed to do? Turn the other cheek? And wasn't this conquering by Islamic warlords of a significant portion of the civilized world at the time called "Jihad" by these very same conquerors?

Thanks for prodding me on in the search for accuracy and truth. However, everything I'm finding is in conflict with most everything you're claiming. Are you advocating balance and moral equivalency as a substitute for truth? I sure hope not!

[RISE_UP]

VTpolitician
4.Many have killed in the name of our God to.

But the difference is...our bible does not compel us to kill or offer us a prize in the after life to murder.Jesus didnt say come to me and follow me or I will kill you. It is free will. God is a God of peace. Not murder. And God is not Allah

[VTpolitician]

You search with such biased views. Just because you created your loving God doesn't mean you have the right to judge all Muslims off of standards set in the Middle East. The only claim I made is that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and that Senator Obama should not be disqualified for office because he is one. You talk about "you talk about turning the other cheek. " The bible does state that, and you don't even believe it should be carried out in all situations. Different sects. Different views. No, Jesus just said that if you didn't follow him you would burn in hell.

[Shy Guy]

Posted by: VTpolitician | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 01:36 PM

You search with such biased views.

I stated documented facts, quoting Islamic sources verbatim. When you start doing the same, rather than shooting of nothing but sweet nothings, let us know. Who is the biased one here?

Just because you created your loving God

You are mistaken. Hold on, please.

doesn't mean you have the right to judge all Muslims off of standards set in the Middle East.

Yet you judged all Muslims. 85% good and 15% evil, remember? Yet if you'll read carefully what I wrote, I did not pretend to have any such statistic. Rather, I questioned yours that based on your wishful thinking. And to disprove your claim of peaceloving Islam (note the word "Islam" - not "Muslims" - savvy?), I quoted every main Islamic theological schools respected root sources, all of whom teach Islam's disciples that Jihad is mainly a violent military struggle against non-Muslims, to be carried out to the "Last Day". So, if you already knew all this, then why are you in denial? And if you didn't know all this, don't you think you should before you start shooting off your mouth at people?

The only claim I made is that the majority of Muslims are peaceful

Read back everything you said here. You claimed much much more.

But let's concentrate on this very point, that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Let me rip off a few words from Robert Spencer:

"a "core theory of Islam" that is "inherently violent and anti-Western," but it doesn't follow from that that "moderate Muslims are a minority." Defined strictly as people who identify themselves as Muslims but will never participate in jihad warfare against the West, and who live peaceful lives, moderate Muslims are an overwhelming majority. But the jihadists are making recruits from among these peaceful Muslims by portraying themselves as the real thing, the true Muslims, and appealing to the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as to Islamic law, to buttress their position. The peaceful Muslims have no theologically mainstream and orthodox comeback they can make to the core Salafist contention that Muslims must make war against unbelievers, although they can and do differ on whether it is appropriate or justified today, whether jihad can be called without state authority, etc.

And so, while peaceful Muslims are a huge majority, the number of actual since Islamic reformers who want to confront and change the doctrines that the jihadists use to justify their actions is in fact very small. Tashbih Sayyed was one of them. But that doesn't mean that "moderate Muslims are a minority" -- not precisely."

and that Senator Obama should not be disqualified for office because he is one.

Let's pretend the big "IF" here. What "IF" everything I said about Islamic doctrine is true and applicable today, that Islam is a totalitarian religion whose aim is to convert and subjugate every last person on earth and every country and island on the planet through some of the most violent means possible. "IF" you yourself were to conclude the same, would you at least pause and consider the potential danger of electing someone coming from this background to being elected Commander in Chief of the United States? Pause before answering and remember: "IF"?

You talk about "you talk about turning the other cheek. " The bible does state that, and you don't even believe it should be carried out in all situations. Different sects. Different views. No, Jesus just said that if you didn't follow him you would burn in hell.

I said earlier to hold on. I'm Jewish.

Yet I have read enough from Christian theologians to know that Christianity did not intend from anyone to die like lemmings jumping over a cliff rather than defending the innocent and the oppressed.

[Jane]

VTpolitician: In an ideal world we would not be having this conversation. But, the sad reality is that we are living in very troubling times. We are trying to come to terms with an ideology that openly preaches hatred of anyone who isn't Muslim. There is plenty of evidence out there to prove this point. Do all Muslims think that way? Of course not. But the challenge for us is to try and sort out who believes that Infidels are inferior and who doesn't - not an easy task.

Obama has not been open and honest about his history or relationship with Islam. His avoidance of the topic provokes one to question his motives, and whether or not he has a hidden Islamic agenda. His actions have provoked these discussions. Undeniably the man has charm, and I would welcome a change from the old crowd. However, the fact that change is needed doesn't necessarily make Obama the right person for the job.

In your desire to be tolerant and accepting of Islam, you may be inadvertently exhibiting bias in your assessment of the man. While your efforts to be fair are commendable, don't let those desires cloud your judgment or prohibit you from asking questions about the man's integrity. To avoid close scrutiny because the man is black and possibly Muslim is reverse discrimination and could harm your country. You accuse me and others of making decisions based on bigotry. But, if you are unable to get past your bias in favor of Islam, and overlook certain issues, then you are guilty of the same flaws that you accuse us of having.

[Shy Guy]

To avoid close scrutiny because the man is black and possibly Muslim

Posted by: Jane | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 02:54 PM

Have I missed where someone here previously made reference to the color of Obama's skin?

[Jane]

Shy Guy: Posted above - Rise_Up said the following - "When all else fails, pull out the race card. Pull out the bigot card, pull out the hate card."

As Islam is not a race I assumed he was talking about the fact that Obama is black.

[VTpolitician]

I did not say good or evil. In fact those were never used. I simply reported a difference in population of sects. I made the concession earlier that we did need to be highly cautious and that yes, the Islamic Extremist's have done terrible things.

You think I have a bias for him because I'm trying to do the right thing? I take an objective view with politics. As far as his background goes I do believe this issue has come to pass. He is a devout Christian and attends church every week.

I understand that you want our nation to be safe and protected as I and all Americans do. In my opinion this is not enough to disqualify him for office.

I'm not avoiding "close scrutiny" and neither is Senator Obama. I also never brought race into this discussion as it should never enter one dealing with electing candidates. I am not calling you racist, nor a bigot filled with hate my friend. I am simply asking you to scrutinize details but not forget to give him the chance he deserves. I am not ignorant of these issues as this was one of the first things I asked when I heard him announce his bid for office.

It is refreshing at least to see someone asking even remotely relevant questions these days though.

[HavanaDeed]

He's not a muslim, you paranoid loons.

Do you remember Keith Ellison, the muslim from Minnesota elected to the House of Representatives, and how gleeful the media was about it? The news people melt over anything that seems progressive and new, and this was controversial to boot. -A story they loved to cover.

Now if a man who could very well become PRESIDENT was actually a muslim, don't you think they would discuss this? Do you think they would give a damn about Romney being a mormon if Obama was really a MUSLIM? That would be a story. Forget about the woman and the mormon, and forget about his being black. His being a muslim would be the big story. But they can't report it because it's not true.

Feel free to say the media are conspiring to keep it quiet. But realize that you're just being intellectually lazy when you cry conspiracy.

[HavanaDeed]

From the main post: "...he would have had to make a decision to reject Islam. When did he make that decision? How? Why the silence? Why the reluctance to talk about it?"

Turns out he wrote a whole article about his spiritual progression to Christianity.
Not so silent or reluctant as you imagine.

Read:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1546579,00.html

Here's an abbreviated summary:

"I was not raised in a religious household.

"For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.

"This isn't to say that she provided me with no religious instruction. In her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education.

"My mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.

"My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

"My work with the pastors and laypeople ... deepened my resolve to lead a public life, but it also forced me to confront a dilemma that my mother never fully resolved in her own life: the fact that I had no community or shared traditions in which to ground my most deeply held beliefs.

"I came to realize that without an unequivocal commitment to a particular community of faith, I would be consigned at some level to always remain apart...
In such a life I ... might have contented myself had it not been for the particular attributes of the historically black church, attributes that helped me shed some of my skepticism and embrace the Christian faith.

"I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. ... In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world.

"It was because of these newfound understandings--that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved--that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

Secular parents. Secular upbringing with a broad-based religious education. Eventual embrace of Christianity out of admiration for the Church's tradition of social activism. Choice as an adult to be baptized as a Christian. ...Where's the terror?
If radical islamists don't like him because of his choices, so what? They hate Bush as a Christian Crusader. Should we never elect a Jew because it might upset the islamists?

Everybody needs to chill out. Definitely take an honest, hard look at the guy, but don't spread false rumors based on fear just because he was named after his atheist Kenyan father, who's middle name happens to be a very common one in the part of the world he was from.

[RISE_UP]

Whoa! Sure have kicked up some dust.Almost like trying to put out the light for fear of it finding something....in...the...woodpile.... I will continue to err on the side of cautious myself. (I don't care what color he is)..and I'm looking for that paragraph in the koran about lying to the infidels. (do you know what people take with them into bomb shelters aside from food and water? A shotgun to keep out the dim wits who thought such a thing would never happen.)

[VTpolitician]

Alright! You and your friends take the shotgun, food, water, and go into the bomb shelter. Lock the door and swallow the key. I'll stay out here in the real world and rely on a system of checks and balances within our government. Hey, if you guy's could take some illegal immigrants with you, that would be great, because they don't belong out there either.

[Lexecon]

VT--I'm with you. Let's meet up at the victory party after we've cast our ballots for Obama. Look at the alternatives, sheesh. I bet tomorrow if Obama throws his support behind Israel, this blog will get Barack fever. But whoa, a video by someone who can't spell? I'm flabbergasted!

More obsessive hyper-focusing. Almost as amusing as the insistence on certain other blogs that Huck is a liberal, as well as the MittBott. Hand over fist absurdity.

[Shy Guy]

Posted by: VTpolitician | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 at 06:24 PM

I did not say good or evil. In fact those were never used. I simply reported a difference in population of sects.

OK. I'll play along. Let's go back to your own post, a verbatim quote:

85% of the Islam nation are Sunni. The peaceful kind. The other 15% are the extremists.

Forgetting about the fact that you have shown no knowledge of Sunni religious teachings regarding the meaning and methods of Jihad, do you disagree with me in associating your words "the peaceful kind" with my word "good" and your words "the extremists" with my word "evil"? Remember, you had just previously stated that:

Shi'a believe in a physical warfare practiced against Christian nations, but most muslims the Sunni believe in a mental struggle and a non-violent aspect of a greater Jihad, and a self struggle.

So, according to your own view of the Islamic world, do you disagree with the use of the terms "good" and "evil", considerring your self-stated defintions of Sunni versus Shi'ite Islam?

As far as his background goes I do believe this issue has come to pass. He is a devout Christian and attends church every week.

The devil is in the details.

Is that what being a "devout Christian" is all about? Is someone with such beliefs the right person to hold any political office in the US?

Or will you sweep this under the rug, too? Can't have facts get in the way, can we!

It is refreshing at least to see someone asking even remotely relevant questions these days though.

It is sad that people appreciate questions but continue to brush off the answers. And there you have most of the world's poltical and strategic blunders in a nutshell. You are not part of the solution. You are the perpetuation of the problem. And we will all pay dearly for it, again and again.

What's that ironic movie title? Oh, yeh. An Incovenient Truth.

[Hugo Schmidt-Fischer]

A lot has been written about whether Obama may, or may not have an affinity to the Muslim persuasion. Well, his sartorial inclinations are properly rooted in Muslim tradition.

Quote: The Prophet PBUH said, "Do not wear silk, for those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the Hereafter."

Fashion expert Nicholas Antongiavanni recently wrote in a Wall Street Journal article:

“Mr. Obama skips the tie at major indoor events, not just outdoor rallies and Rock the Vote concerts sponsored by MTV. He goes tieless not merely in his shirtsleeves, or even with a blazer. He carries the open-necked look into a realm it was never meant to go: with the two-piece, dark business suit.

Barack Obama -- unquestionably the hippest candidate for the presidency since John F. Kennedy -- may do to the tie what Kennedy helped do to the hat. It's a myth that JFK killed the hat simply by not wearing one to his inauguration -- actually, that was the one instance when he did wear one. But by ostentatiously eschewing a hat everywhere else, at a time when the hat's place in the male wardrobe needed all the high-level support it could get, a very public "nay" vote from that suave, young, handsome patrician helped tip the balance against it.

This heresy earns the young senator praise from today's keepers of the style tablets. The Washington Post's Robin Givhan -- the acid-penned Madame Blackwell of the Beltway -- could hardly contain herself. "[Obama's] tieless suit," she gushed, "[is] a cross between the style of a 1950s home-from-the-office dad and a 1990s GQ man about town. It is warmly, safely, nostalgically . . . cool."

Others have noticed something else. Take the impeccably liberal Jeff Greenfield. "Ask yourself," he challenged his CNN audience, "is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of GQ to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable."

We can thank Mr. Greenfield for being reckless enough to say what many were thinking. But he mistakes Mr. Ahmadinejad's source. Mr. Obama may have gotten the idea from GQ, but the Iranian President got it from the Ayatollah Khomeini.

One of the lesser-known outcomes of the 1979 Iranian revolution was the stigmatization of the tie as a tool of Western Imperialism. The Ayatollah even denounced some of his perceived enemies as "tie-wearing cronies of the West." Today in much of the Islamist world, the tie is seen as not merely pro-Western but anti-Islamic, even though no prohibition of the garment can be found in Islamic law. There is a stricture against men wearing silk, but Muslim dandies can get around that by wearing cashmere or linen ties -- and many do.

It's hard to think of anything less hip -- or less intended to be hip -- than Islamist dogma on personal grooming. Yet despite traveling radically different routes along the way, Messrs. Obama and Ahmadinejad somehow manage to wind up in the same sartorial spot. Sort of like the way Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich share virtually identical foreign policies.

We should hope that the tie survives. It is too noble a garment to let go for light and transient, or dark and sinister, causes. The good news is that Mr. Obama's foray into tielessness does not stem from deeply held ideology. When it really counts, he does the right thing. No doubt, should he make it to the end, his neck will be covered on inauguration day. Just like JFK's head.“

So far about Obama. Now for some more quotes from Islam:
The Prophet (peace be on him) forbade men to wear fabric decorated with large, loud, or bold designs. In his Sahih, Muslim reported 'All as saying, The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) forbade me the wearing of a gold ring, a silken garment, and clothing with bold designs.

Muslim also reports a hadith from Ibn 'Umar, who said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) saw me wearing two garments having bold designs, and he said, "This is what unbelievers wear. Do not wear such things."

'All reported that the Prophet (peace be on him) took some silk in his right hand and some gold in his left, declaring, "These two are haram for the males among my followers." (Reported by Ahmad, Abu Daoud, al-Nisai, Ibn Hayyan, and lbn Majah, who reports the additional phrase, "but halal for the females.") 'Umar reported that he heard the Prophet (peace be on him) say, "Do not wear silk, for those who wear it in this life shall not wear it in the Hereafter." (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim. A Similar hadith is reported by them on the authority of Anas.) On another occasion, referring to a silken garment, he said, "This is the dress of a man who has no character.'' (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim.)

The Prophet (peace be on him) made concessions in the wearing of silken garments for medical reasons, as he gave 'Abd al-Rahman bin 'Auf and al-Zubayr bin al-'Awwam, both of whom suffered from scabies, permission to wear silk. (Reported by al-Bukhari.)

[Shy Guy]

There's always polyester!

[HavanaDeed]

And there's always over-analysis.
(polyester, though.. HA!)

Are we really considering that since he doesn't always wear a tie it may be a secret clue that he's bound by some sharia law? Really. He's out there campaigning and shaking hands trying to look folksy and down to earth.
You're all trying pretty hard to make this baptised Christian (and baptisms require witnesses) man into an object of fear. Is there some other prejudice at work here?

Ooh, all that talk about change sure sounds sinister, though, doesn't it?

But his wife doesn't cover her head in public! What could it mean?

I wonder, have the press corps that follow him all day noticed him turning coyly toward Mecca and winking 5 times a day?

It seems that all of you will just interpret any non-islamic activity as some kind of diguise. You seem to have made your minds up that based on superfiscial things (name, color, heritage) he MUST be a muslim.
Take a deep breath, take a step back, and consider that he may actually be a patriotic American who just happens to have a funny name and a different background.

Did none of you have parents or grandparents who held beliefs you didn't agree with? If your grandfather was racist, I guess I should assume that you are too, and that you can never change it. If grannie was a loyal Baptist, then there's nothing you can possibly do or say to convince me that you're not a Baptist too. You could even grow up with hippie Buddhist parents, and then convert to Judaism when you're in college. BUT NOPE! Your grannie was a BAPTIST, and you must secretly still be a one too.

But then, that would never happen, because you folks don't live in paranoid, prejudiced terror of white folks with Baptist backgrounds. But black men with Muslim backgrounds? Well... He better put on a damn tie.

This is a pathetic discussion.