Why did U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama feel the need to tell his hosts on Sunday November 7, 2010 in India -- at St. Xavier's College in Mumbai, just a short walk away from the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, one of the sites of the November 26, 2008 jihad attacks in which Islamic supremacists murdered 173 people and wounded another 308 -- that Islam is a religion of Peace and whitewash the meaning of jihad? The initial answer to that question is that a student at St. Xavier's asked Obama the question: "What is your take or opinion about jihad? Or jihadi, whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?"
Was this a Hindu student or a Muslim student? I ask because 80.5% of India's population is Hindu while only 13.4 % is Muslim and only 2.3 % Christian. Islam and Sharia play an integral part in India's legal system. I also wonder if this question was intended to make Obama look good and sympathetic to Islam (as if that would be a difficult thing to do)? And why was Obama so flustered at the question and so fumbling in his answer (other than he had no teleprompter or bug in his ear to put words in his mouth)? Off the teleprompter is when the real Obama speaks:
... "Well…" Pause. "You know, uh…" Pause. Then he fell back on some clichés from back in Great World Religions class: "The phrase Jihad has lot of meanings within Islam, and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that first, Islam is one of the world's great religions." Having begun mining the boilerplate, he finally hit something resembling a stride: "And, uh, more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority, uh, view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice, and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence against innocent people that is never justified." (Steve Emerson)
I wonder how much peace, justice, fairness and tolerance the family of a TWO-YEAR-OLD girl who was used by the Taliban as the trigger for a bomb by which killed her and five Afghan police are feeling today. Or the families of those killed in the Mumbai attacks -- especially little Moshe Holtzberg whose was saved by his nanny while his rabbi father and mother were brutally tortured and killed -- or the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, and on, and on, and on...
One must ask the question, "How many are a few extremists?". Sultan Knish, a/k/a Daniel Greenfield, believes that Obama is the one who is distorting Islam and compares Obama's many statements to those of the Koran, Ayatollah Khomeini, Caliph Abu Bakr, Mohammed's Successor. Greenfield attempts to answer the question:
How many exactly is a "few"? Are we talking about a few dozen, a few thousand, a few million? Naturally Obama and the Islam apologists never really address that question. Because it is a rather inconvenient question. Since Muslims are defined by religious streams and mosque attendance, it should be easy enough to come up with a realistic figure.
We could start with the population of Saudi Arabia, which ranks at some 25 million. That is quite a "few" extremists right there. Then there's Pakistan with a population of 166 million. That's a few more, right there. Of course officially both countries are allies of the United States and have nothing to do with terrorism. Even when it's funded by their own governments.
So let's move on to a slightly more definitive figure. In 2006, the Palestinian Arabs held an election. 440,000 of them voted for Hamas. A terrorist organization. In the 2009 Lebanon election, a coalition that included Hezbollah and the Baath Party won over 800,000 votes. So certainly we know that there are more than 1 million "misunderstanders" of Islam out there. And that's out of a tiny portion of the Muslim world. (continue)
Obama is partially correct, there are different definitions of "jihad" but they all equal bad news for anyone and anything that is not Islam.
Jihad, then is actual worship in Islam. But jihad is not simply a variety of worship. Jihad forms the very core of Muslim worship. Jihad can be violent or nonviolent. Waging war to defend or advance Islam is "lesser jihad," the kind that Islamist terrorists claim to be doing. It gets the headlines, but "greater jihad" is the more pernicious threat to the West. I explained why in, "The Threat of a Greater Jihad."
In my next installments, I’ll explain why jihad is irreducibly required for salvation in Muslim theology and why jihad requires the supremacy of sharia, Islamic law, over the social, domestic and political systems of society. (Donald Sensing)
Question Obama's version of Islam and jihad and you will be labeled.
As Alan Caruba points out, there is a very real difference between a phobia, and being aware of a clear and present danger:
[...] How Islamaphobic can Americans be when they elected the son of a Muslim father, a man who spent his boyhood in Indonesia with a Muslim step-father, and who just came within a hair's breath of endorsing the building a mosque near Ground Zero after having been seen bowing to the kind of Saudi Arabia? ...
... A phobia is an irrational fear of something. It is just common sense to fear members of a so-called religion more devoted to death than life; a religion that authorizes, sanctions, and demands that unbelievers be killed in the name of Allah.
As was pointed out in an earlier post today on Robert Spencer's debate with Peter Kreeft ... a "good Muslim" as viewed by true Islamists
There are consequences to Obama view of his Islam, Robert Spencer mentions a few:
... Obama’s commitment to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace that has been distorted by a few extremists is rock-solid and unshakeable, and so it is important to note some of the policy errors that flow from it and will continue to do so:
1. The pressuring of Israel. ...
2. The coddling of Iran. ...
3. The mainstreaming of American Muslim groups with links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. ...
4. The outreach to the Islamic world. Obama’s Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Rashad Hussain, was in Mali recently to strengthen the U.S.’s commitment to aiding the Islamic world. It has been a primary focus of Obama’s presidency, even to the point of redefining NASA’s mission from space exploration to Muslim outreach. All of this, from the disproportionate to the absurd, stems from the core assumption that since there is nothing wrong with Islam, if Muslims are angry at us, it must be because of something we have done – and therefore we must set out to fix it.
Bringing little comfort to anyone who has been a target of the religion of peace, a Joint Indo-U.S. Statement was issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President Barack Obama late on Monday November 8, 2010 called on Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.
At the same time Obama refers to those who do not believe in a peaceful Islam as he does, Obama referred to us as "distorters" and has a plan to deal with us:
Obama recommended that the distorters be “isolated”:
“And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we, uh, isolate those who have these distorted notions of, uh, religious war, and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts, whether you are a Hindu, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew, or, uh, any other religion, or you don’t practice a religion. And we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to, uh, that those are what we’re living up to, as we, uh, live in a nation, uh, or nations, that have very diverse religious beliefs.” (Robert Spencer)
That from the "most articulate" man to ever hit the face of this great earth? I have just one thing to say. "Uh!"
To answer my original question of why Obama is forcing jihad down our throats, the answers are obvious:
1. He is a true believer in Islam.
2. He is oblivious to the feelings of the victims of Islamic terror and has no sympathy for them.
3. He is a progressive/liberal with an erroneous high opinion of himself and those like him who always choose the wrong side/thing to support.