Obama the Muslim. Obama the Plant. Obama the Manchurian Candidate.

Obama, 9/11, and Freedom of Conscience

* Here on Winds of Jihad we have always maintained that Barack Hussien Obama is a Muslim as well  as a Marxist. He is not a Christian and neither is Black Liberation Theology. He is tied in  with those who hate the U.S. and what it stands for. Such a creature should not be allowed to hold any office in the US, let alone run for POTUS.

By Andrew G. Bostom

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News which aired Sunday September 7, 2008, Barack Obama bemoaned what he claimed were insidious Republican attempts to “promulgate,” falsely, his “Muslim connections.” Senator Obama then made a minor gaffe (at ~ 2 minutes 50 seconds, here), in his half-hearted exculpation of Senator McCain: “John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Stephanopoulos, who earlier defended McCain against Obama’s general anti-Republican allegations, then corrected Obama’s misstatement with instantaneous, politically-correct alacrity, reminding the Democratic Presidential nominee,  “…[you meant] your Christian faith.”

Creepy:

Obama Personality Cult Watch

Pueblouniondepot09140802

Found on Atlas.

Snapped Shot is asking: “what we really need to be asking ourselves is this: Do wereally want to elect a president that is reminiscent of a third-worlddicatator?”

And certainly the full context of the discussion makes clear Obama was not in any way acknowledging some personal embrace of Islam, when he responded, “What I meant to say, he [McCain] hasn’t suggested that I am Muslim.”

But the self-aggrieved, whining tone of Senator Obama’s interview struck me as particularly inappropriate occurring just four days prior to his scheduled appearance with Senator McCain at Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan. Both men will suspend their Presidential campaigns to be present at a joint, non-partisan event, Thursday, September 11, 2008, commemorating the 7th anniversary of the cataclysmic acts of mass-murdering jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001.

 

Those savage attacks represent a jihadist assault on our core Western values-prominently among them, the freedom of conscience Barack Obama’s personal biography epitomizes-despite his apparent obliviousness to, or denial of, this reality.

 

Sober, independent analyses by academics, including published essays in The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times, concur that Obama’s childhood experience of Islam — as perceived by Muslims from Islamic societies, in particular — has two critically important, and inter-related ramifications: his status as a Muslim; and more ominously, as an apostate from Islam.

 

During his childhood years in Indonesia, Barack Obama was enrolled as a Muslim (see here, here, here, and here) at his primary schools (this is confirmed, conclusively, in a registration document — which the Associated Press photographed — made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, demonstrating that his Muslim step-father listed Obama’s boyhood religion as Islam), and also attended the mosque during that period.   

Tine Hahiyary, a former teacher at one of these schools, claimed that the young Obama actively took part in “mengaji” classes (consistent with devout Islamic education), which instruct students to read the Koran in Arabic. And the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, a Muslim classmate  of the young Obama, who characterized Obama as “…previously quite religious in Islam.” While disputing Obama’s childhood Muslim religiosity, a subsequent Chicago Tribune report still concedes that the young Obama was at least an irregularly practicing Muslim, who occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque.

 

Irrespective of Obama’s Muslim devoutness as a child, one must also bear in mind how contemporary (and classical) Islamic Law views the offspring of any marriage between a Muslim man (Obama’s birth father and step-father were both Muslims), and a non-Muslim woman. Sheikh ‘Abdus-Sattar Fathallah As-Sa`eed, professor of Koranic Exegesis and Koranic Sciences at Al-Azhar University — for more a thousand years, the pre-eminent center of Sunni Islamic religious education — in arecently issued a fatwa (June 20, 2002), reiterated plainly the Islamic principle that paternity determines (Muslim) religious identity for a child born of a Muslim father, and a non-Muslim wife:  

 

There is nothing wrong, as far as Islam is concerned, that a Muslim man marries a Christian woman, but he should stipulate (in the marriage contract) that any children from the marriage will be Muslims.

 

Not surprisingly then, as Daniel Pipes has assiduously documented, the predominant understanding about Obama in Islamic societies is that the Democratic Presidential nominee, at minimum, has “Muslim origins” (as stated explicitly for example in the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri al-Youm). Libyan dictator Mu‘ammar al-Qaddafi has referred to Obama as “…a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia.”   

Analyses by Al-Jazeera have called Obama a “non-Christian man,” made reference to his “Muslim Kenyan” father, and observed, tellingly, that Obama may not want to be counted as a Muslim but Muslims are eager to count him as one of their own.” 

Pipes also notes how Arabic discussions of Obama occasionally mention his Arab Muslim middle name (Hussein), cryptically, “with no further comment needed.”Moreover, even the American Muslim leaders Sayyid M. Syeed, president of the Islamic Society of North America, and Lewis Farakhan of the Nation of Islam, apparently view Obama as a Muslim. Speaking at a conference in Houston, Syeed encouraged Muslims that, regardless of the outcome of the American Presidential elections, Obama’s candidacy reinforces the notion that Muslim children can “become the presidents of this country.” Farrakhan claimed Obama was “the hope of the entire world,” and compared him to his religion’s founder, Fard Muhammad, “A black man with a white mother [who] became a savior to us.”

 

Political scientist Shireen Burkhi, and historian Edward Luttwak have warned that this widespread perception of Obama’s Muslim identity in Islamic societies may readily engender a dangerous sentiment — the belief that Obama is an apostate from Islam. And as Daniel Pipes recently demonstrated, the subject of Obama’s apostasy has already been raised in the Arab Muslim media. Not only did at least one Arabic-language newspaper publish Burki’s article, Obama was described as “a born Muslim, an apostate, a convert to Christianity,” in Kuwait’s Al-Watan, while Syrian liberal Nidal Na‘isa denoted Obama as an “apostate Muslim,” repeatedly, in the Arab Times. 

 

The recent case of Abdul Rahman illustrates, starkly, why any perception of Obama as a Muslim “apostate” raises — or should raise — fundamental awareness about the yawning gap between Islamic, and Western conceptions of freedom of conscience.  Rahman’s predicament made eminently clear that Islamic societies do not accept the putatively universal standard for freedom of conscience as defined, for example in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 18,

 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

When in March, 2006, the unassuming Mr. Rahman faced death at the hands of our Afghan allies for the “crime” of converting to Christianity, it was no fluke, not a brutal Afghan variant on the practice of “tolerant” Islam. Death for apostasy is part and parcel of Islamic scripture and tradition. The poignant travails of this Afghan Muslim convert to Christianity — who was willing to die for the basic expression of his freedom of conscience, and whose life was only spared upon being granted asylum in Italy — demonstrate a uniquely Islamic fusion of absurdity and denial: in light of Koran 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”), and repeated claims that Islam is characterized by freedom of belief and creed, devoid of compulsion, why has apostasy from Islam always been punished so harshly, for thirteen centuries, into the present era?

 

Ibn Warraq’s seminal 2003 study of apostasy, past and present, Leaving Islam (p.31), distinguishes transient doubt — edified by discovering the “truth” of Islam — from apostasy.

 

Doubt is a very good passageway, but a very bad place to stop in. However, apostasy is a matter of treason and ideological treachery, which originates from hostility and hypocrisy. The destiny of a person who has an inborn handicap is different from the destiny of one whose hand should be cut off due to the development of a dangerous and infectious disease. The apostasy of a Muslim individual whose parents have also been Muslim is a very infectious, dangerous and incurable disease that appears in the body of an ummah (people) and threatens peoples lives, and that is why this rotten limb should be severed.

 

And punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in the most holy Muslim texts — both the Koran, and the hadith — as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari’a). Koran 4:89 states: 

 

They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

 

One of the most authoritative Koranic commentators, Baydawi (d. 1315/16) interprets this passage thus: “Whosoever turns back from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard” (cited in Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34). Ibn Kathir’s (d. 1373) venerated commentary on Koran 4:89 concurs, maintaining that as apostates have manifested their unbelief, they should be punished by death.   

These draconian judgments are reiterated in a number of hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said “Kill him who changes his religion” in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali,  Hanafi, and Shafi’i), as well as Shi’ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist,provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy (vol. 2, p. 552):

 

An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, “Slay those who change their din [religion]”…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution

 

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy-endorsed Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, ‘Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:
Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

 

Warraq (p.19) has summarized how convicted apostates have been killed, typically by the sword (i.e., beheading), although

 

… there are examples of apostates tortured to death, or strangled, burned, drowned, impaled, or flayed. The Caliph ‘Umar [d. 644] used to tie them to a post and had lances thrust into their hearts, and the [Mameluke] Sultan Baybars II (1308-09) made [their] torture legal.

 

Sir Henry Layard, the British archaeologist, writer, and diplomat (including postings in Turkey), described this abhorrent spectacle which he witnessed in the heart of Istanbul, in the autumn of 1843, four years after the first failed iteration of the so-called Tanzimat reforms designed to abrogate the sacralized discrimination of Islamic Law, as practiced in the “tolerant” Ottoman Empire:

 

An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [i.e., common 19th century usage for Islam] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul [Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.

 

Finally, within our current era, Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-96), an important 20th  century Egyptian cleric, then an official of Al Azhar University, supported — consistent with Islamic Law — the July 1994 vigilante murder of secular “apostate” Egyptian writer Farag Foda. Testifying on behalf of Farag Foda’s murderer, al-Ghazali stated, unabashedly, that Foda’s apostasy represented, “… a danger to society and the nation that must be eliminated. It is the duty of the government to kill him.”

 

Ibn Warraq writes as a mature, intrepid secular Muslim “apostate,” and scholar of Islam, which affords him unique, important perspectives. Clearly, Warraq’s writings and the apostate testimonials he has compiled are unsparing in their frank criticism of Islamic dogmas and jurisdictions. However, these passionate critiques also reveal the deep, unbroken affection Warraq and his fellow apostates maintain for the individual men and women in their former societies. These brave apostates should never be associated, disingenuously, with bigoted, non-Muslim xenophobes who have surfaced in the West. Warraq speaks for truly courageous intellectuals from Muslim societies who support profound reforms of Islamic institutions. And Warraq’s most recent book, “Defending the West” is a celebration of  the “golden threads” woven through Western culture — rationalism, universalism, and self-criticism — which he defended passionately in the wake of the Danish Muhammad cartoons debacle:

 

The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes… By defending our values, we are teaching the Islamic world a valuable lesson, we are helping them by submitting their cherished traditions to Enlightenment values.

 

Ibn Warraq’s formal childhood experience of Islam mirrored Barack Obama’s — it was no more extensive. Yet despite copious evidence to the contrary, Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to deny even a nominal childhood Muslim upbringing.  These repeated, often shrill and accusatory denials are accompanied by a disturbing, if predictable silence: not once has Senator Obama celebrated the remarkable freedom of conscience he had here in America to decide in his mid to late 20s that he would practice Christianity openly, and devotedly, absent any consideration of his childhood Muslim background.   

Mr. Obama has thus far squandered the unparalleled opportunity to highlight and extol a profoundly important virtue of this flawed, but still great country of ours, personified by his life story: America’s singular, unwavering support for true freedom of conscience.

 

Surely if Obama is to live up to his followers (and his own) pretensions of being a “transformative” figure, then he should be ready to elucidate, frankly, the utter lack of freedom of conscience in the Muslim world, relative to the US; why his own life trajectory demonstrates this difference; and how the fight against global jihadism is, at its core, about the protection of this most profoundly important Western ideal. Let us hope that Obama’s involvement with the 7th annual commemoration of September 11, 2001 will give him pause to reflect upon these matters, and discuss them, becoming a true “agent of change.” And should Senator Obama need any further inspiration, I suggest he have a long conversation with Ibn Warraq.  

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad  (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
***
Want more?
Here’s Pamela from Atlas Shrugs:

JUST WHO THE HELL IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?

Jamal M. Barzinji Gave Obama $1,000.

Dr. Jamal al Barzinji is a noted American businessman and political operative, most recently associated with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and theSAAR Foundation.

Barzinji is a long-term business associate of Muslim Brotherhood activist and al Taqwa Bank chairmanYoussef Nada.[1] Barzinji also serves as a trustee and officer of the Amana Mutual Funds Trust, a growth and income mutual fund headquartered in Bellingham, Washington, along with SAAR co-executive Yaqub Mirza and Talat M. Othman. (more at Wikipedia)

World Assembly of Muslim Youth

In 1980 Barzinji was a representative of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), alongsideAbdallah Osama bin Laden, a younger-half brother of Osama bin Laden.

On March 20, 2002, a U.S. Customs Service investigative unit called Operation Green Quest conducted a raid on an allegedly interrelated group of Wahhabiist interests in northern Virginia. Among these were the Herndon, Virginia, VA, offices of Dr. Barzinji, and the SAAR Foundation, created by wealthy SaudiSulaiman Abdul Aziz Al Rajhi.

Obama and those all those Saudi connections. Much thanks to Slim Guy for all of his help.

MUSLIMS IN TERROR PROBE MAKING DONATIONS TO OBAMA

It’s an international Muslim supremacist organization, along the lines of the Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. Jamal M. Barzinji earlier this year gave Obama $1,000, a gift that records show has not been returned. . [1] 

Jamal M. Barzinji earlier this year gave Obama $1,000,.Barzinji remains at the center of an active federal investigation.
  [2] Jamal M. Barzinji earlier this year gave Obama $1,000, a gift that records show has not been returned. Other Democratic candidates, including Rep. Jim Moran, have refunded donations from Barzinji since federal agents raided his Virginia home and offices in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Obama’s top Muslim adviser resigned earlier this month over controversy surrounding his ties to an alleged Muslim Brotherhood front connected to Barzinji, who heads a network of Islamic charities and businesses. [3] In the sea of faces and waving flags stood a woman by the name of Marilyn Katz. Like several of the other radicals who populate Obama’s sphere, she once advocated guerilla tactics against police officers and participated in violent riots. Unlike some of her more infamous counterparts like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn – who are in self-imposed exile until November 5 – Katz is deeply, and officially, involved in Obama’s presidential campaign.[4]

Barack, you’ve spent what, a couple of years being a committee chair for some group in Chicago – oh yeah, and your buddy Ayers was also a committee chair on that group. That comprises the totality of your executive work and that really doesn’t count when the rubber has to hit the road. Sarah Palin was a mayor and a now a governor – both positions meaning you make a decision and live with the consequences. [5] True to the marxist ideology that both Obama and Catro hold, Obama’s threats toward people who are critical of what he’s said in the past, about his relationship with Ayers as an example, or what has been happening to the man who accused him of having homosexual sex and doing cocaine in the back of a limo in 1999, Larry Sinclair – are both very similar to what happens in Castro’s Cuba. [3]

It is impossible to begin to “understand” the kind of insanity that fills Osama Obama’s head. They were Bill Ayers writ large. It is a measure of America’s greatness that demented, foolish children like Obama can mouth their stupid and traitorous beliefs and survive. It is a measure of America’s decline that millions of Americans appear to take him seriously. [6]

UPDATE: Trivia: Barack was horse’s name of the prophet Mohammad

*

Obama and Black Liberation Theology: The Inside Story

We’ve all seen the shocking clips of Reverend Wright screaming, “God damn America,” “US of KKKA,” and declaring with seeming delight in his heart — a mere 5 days after the 9/11 attacks — that “America’s chickens have come home to roost.” While Obama unconvincingly attempted to dismiss Wright’s rantings as mere out-of-context “snippets,” the reality is that such sentiments are entirely consistent with the theology of Obama’s church — that is, black liberation theology.

As Reverend Wright has explained, black liberation theology is based on the teachings of Dr. James Cone. So who is Dr. Cone? In his most influential work, Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. Cone explained black liberation theology as follows:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community…. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. 

Wow. Just Wow.

While it is impossible to determine the extent to which Obama himself subscribes to such views, it’s certainly a fair question to ask. After all, if Obama is totally opposed to such radical sentiments, then why did he remain in the church for over 20 years? And why did Obama and his wife donate $22,500 to the church as recently as 2006?

It would be great if the media were interested in investigating these issues, but I am told they are now busy trying to dig up some dirt on the Palin family dog. You heard it here first, folks.

 

7 thoughts on “Obama the Muslim. Obama the Plant. Obama the Manchurian Candidate.”

  1. Dear Mr. Bostom,

    I have been studying the life of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadith, and Sharia Law for the last four years. I have come to the conclusion that Islam is not compatible with our Judeo-Christian Civilization of the West. Mohammed was a very, very dysfunctional human being whose troubled soul has burdened humanity with his blatant lies for fourteen hundred years. My Greek ancestors were enslaved by Islam for almost five hundred years. We have suffered terribly at the hands of Islam and we know first hand what it means to live under Islam. All Mohammed’s teachings are a figment of his imagination. His teachings are out of touch with reality and if Obama is connected with this false religion in any way he should be rejected off hand by the American electorate.

  2. I have just written “The Jihad Candidate II” which I hope is “googleable” (is that a word?) in a day or two. Moonbats will of course go crazy, but the truth often bites. I have a gut feeling that somewhere in the Arabian desert twelve old boys sit in a tent eating figs and goat cheese while laughing their asses off that they were able to smuggle one into our White House.

  3. WHATS WRONG WITH BEING A MUSLIM? WHATS WRONG WITH BEING BLACK? BE ANYTHING ELS BUT NOT A MUSLIM ITS A CRIME TO BE A MUSLIM MR TOM AND MR SAM WOULDENT LIKE IT IF YOU WERE A MUSLIM OR A BLACK BROWN YELLOW MAN OR A WOMEN ITS THE WORLD OF MR TOM AND MR SAME AND WELCOME TO IT

  4. I AM VERY PROUD THAT AM NOT WHITE IF I WAS I WOULD HAVE KILLED MY SELF I WOULD HAVE TRUN THE WORLD UP SIDE DOWN AND ON ITS KNEES I THANKS GOD THAT AM NOT MR TOM NO HARD FEELINGS JUST BEING HONEST

  5. YES THERE ARE MUSLIM EXTREAMIST OUT THERE AND ALSO CHRISTIAN JEWISH EXTREAMIST WHO ARE PREECHING HATE IN NAME OF GOD AND FAITH WHICH IS WRONG AND EVIL

  6. JEWISH FAITH AND A CHRISTIAN FAITH ARE NOT A WESTRIN FAITH BUT A MIDEL EASTRIN FAITH THAT ALSO CAME OUT OF DESSERT WHICH A FACT says:

    THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN FAITH DID NOT CAME OUT FROM THE WEST BUT FROM A HOLY REGIN OF MIDDEL EAST WHICH THEY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR MOSES WAS NOT WHITE SO WAS JESUS THEY WERE MIDEL EASTRIN

Comments are closed.