On September 17, 2001, six days after the worst Islamic terror attacks ever on US soil, President Bush stood next to CAIR’s Nihad Awad at the Islamic Center of Washington DC, and pronounced ‘Islam is Peace’.
Get ready people, because the last speech took our shoes and socks off:
Nihad Awad is second from the right. Here’s an excerpt from the President’s speech:
The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war. …
Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.
I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.
In other news:
Fareed Zakaria from Newsweek is telling us to go back to sleep:
July 2-9, 2007 issue – Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, are strangely united on one point: the threat from global jihad is growing dangerously. Republicans use that belief as a way to remind the American people that we live in a fearsome worldâ€”and need tough leaders to protect us. For Democrats, the same idea fortifies their claim that the Bush administration has failed to deal with a crucial threatâ€”and that we need a new national-security team. Terrorism experts and the media add to this chorus, consciously or not, because they have an incentive to paint a grim picture: bad news sells. Amid the clamor, it is difficult to figure out what is actually going on.
Interesting stuff from a so-called ‘interfaith-outreach’ program:
Here’s an interesting report on an “interfaith outreach” program at a church featuring a Muslim speaker; ever notice that these “outreach” programs only seem to reach in one direction? Muslim Speaks at My Church, Calls Me “Naive.” Also “Tough.”
I asked him about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch MP, former Muslim and self-described “Muslim atheist” who left Holland after being evicted from her apartment so that her neighbors would be safer from Islamic threats to her life. He responded that her situation is “contrived,” that she’s not in any danger, “it’s all to sell books,” “you watch,” she’ll live long and make lots of money. And on further reflection, he decided that I am “naive” for believing her tales. Who would bother with her, he asked rhetorically.
Naturally I then asked about the murder of van Gogh. Our speaker’s response: “An aberration.” Surely the stated target for murder of even an “aberration,” as Ms. Ali was targeted by van Gogh’s killer and has been publicly marked for death in the last three months, must be in danger? No, it’s all contrived.
But how can it be contrived or an aberration when so many rioted over the Danish cartoons? His answer: “Touch Mohammed and there will be riots.”
The burning of the profit Muhammed Update
Bush: Stuck on Stupid
Bush wants Muslims to denounce terror
* Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does
Gee, that would be nice, now nearly six years after 9/11. But it isn’t nearly enough. Muslim leaders of all kinds have already denounced “terror.” The problem here is that no one is defining these terms; rather, everyone is assuming that we all mean the same things by them whenever we use them. By “terror” does one mean “an unprovoked attack against innocent civilians with the intention of causing undifferentiated mayhem”? Muslim leaders will have no problem denouncing that. But if one means “actions carried out in order to advance the program of Islamic supremacism that advances through both nonviolent and violent jihad,” that is quite another matter. No one is being specific enough. No one is speaking about “the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism” and asking Muslims to denounce that. No one dares.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES – President Bush will challenge Muslim leaders to denounce acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam during a speech today at the same Washington mosque he visited days after the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Bush will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center of Washington, a half-century after President Eisenhower spoke at its dedication on June 28, 1957.
The president’s speech will focus on “the importance of religious freedom in the Middle East, and how securing that freedom requires Muslims to stand up to extremists,” according to a White House briefing document released yesterday evening.
Mr. Bush also will thank Muslim leaders who have spoken out against terrorism.
Although the president will emphasize that “the face of terrorism is not the true face of Islam,” he brings a different message with him to the mosque than he did six years ago.
On Sept. 17, 2001, Mr. Bush, seeking to prevent acts of retaliation against American Muslims after the September 11 attacks, said, “Islam is peace.”
But since then, the president’s rhetoric about Islam and terrorism has shifted. In 2005, he spoke about “Islamic radicalism,” specifying that the enemy in the war on terrorism is a certain brand of Islam.
James Phillips, a Middle East analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said Mr. Bush was distinguishing between “an ideology and a religion.”
Great. But this is an artificial distinction, imposed from without, and having no basis in traditional Islam.