The President’s Speech

This is powerful stuff of historical proportions. A great speech in the Egypt with an audience of One Billion Muslins. We need to trust each other, Muslins and Americans that good people of the world want peace not war.

Negative stereotypes of Islam? Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be the actions & words of Muslims in the name of their religion? And this, despite the best efforts of politicians, journalists, & academics to white-wash these same actions & words.
Islam, in its own words – just read the Qurán, read the Hadith, read some of Sharía Law, listen to Imams in the mosques, the various pronouncements of Islamic groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, the speeches of Ahmadinejad.
No one has to invent a negative stereotype of Islam – they do it very well all by themselves.
How many atrocities, suicide-bombings, beheadings, etc. does one have to see?
And how does the Muslim world want to prevent a ”negative stereotype” – by censorship, of course. By not allowing public criticism of Islam, by criminalizing free speech.
Is this what Obama means?

Obama says we share common principles & values with the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Does Islam believe in equality for all citizens? Absolutely not.
Does Islam believe in freedom of religion? Absolutely not.
Does Islam believe in freedom of speech? Absolutely not.
So what are these ”values” we share with Islamic ideology?

Lmao…. so Obama is about to choose his Mosque in DC?….What was he implying in that speech..Americans are infidels?..He may be sorry he is American BUT i definitely am not

Our own Chameleon-in-Chief

Terry, you suggest that people read Muslim primary sources for themselves. I second that suggestion, although we clearly come to very different conclusions about the religion and its people having been exposed to these writings. It should be pointed out that there is no single “hadith,” as your statement seems to imply. Hadiths are teaching of Muhammad, separate from the revelations of the Quran which Muhammad claimed to merely transmit after they were revealed to him by the archangel Gabriel (Jabril). There are numerous collections of hadiths and not all hadiths are recognized as legitimate by all Muslims. To take the simplest example, hadiths passed down through Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite wife (after Khadija) are often not accepted by the Shi’a community because she and Ali, the first leader of the Shiites, were rivals and she led troops into battle against him.
You simply cannot speak of the religion of Islam as monolithic, as you do in your post, any more than you can speak of Christianity, with its endless variety of subgroups (Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Southern Baptist, Nestorian (more properly Assyrian), Coptic, Amish, Church of Christ, the list could go on for pages) as monolithic.

Terry : ” So what are these ”values” we share with Islamic ideology? ”
–
Worship of leaders !?

Moderate – I am familiar with the various collections of Hadith. They vary in very minor details, the vast majority accepted as accurate by Islamic scholars of every school of Islamic jurisprudence. As it happens, I am originally from an Arab Muslim country & quite familiar with Islamic law. Your argument is most disingenuous since on all major issues, Islamic scholars agree. Islam is far more monolithic than Christianity, many diferences being one of folk customs & practices. The same Qurán is used throughout the Muslim world. Years ago, you could say that some countries were far less strict about Islamic practice but this had nothing to do with orthodox & accepted ideology, they were just lax in their practice. This is much less the case today, mostly due to Saudi propaganda in the propagation of Wahhabism.

Too late now folks. This man will turn this country into something that will make you not care if you die. When will the naive leftists see what they have done by voting for this man? when, I ask you, when? He is as dangerous as we, who have insight, knew he was right from the beginning. I wonder what the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 are thinking right now.

“…any world order that elevates one nation over another will fail…”
Yes, that is the President’s worldview in a nutshell.
If the President is not elected to promote America’s interests first, than what for?
Sometimes it comes at the expense of another nation’s interests.That is reality.

Terry: Your argument is most disingenuous since on all major issues, Islamic scholars agree.
——
Issues like : Inheritance, Divorce/Marriage, and obedience of leaders, you mean ?

KR: I believe many of the Muslim listeners were looking for substance.
——
I was looking for substance,and I wanted something like this:
First, they need to stop whining about dictators and cruel criminals [Saddam and Taliban] being removed, that is an Insult to Iraqis and Afghanis alike.
Second, they need to become more vocal against religious extremist speeches which somehow parrot the same rhetoric of conspiracy theories secular muslims use.
Third, they need to take care of their own children and countries instead of abandoning them to fight for causes that don’t affect their lives or their countries.
Fourth, abandon the support to Suicide bombers in concept and in reality.
Just to name a few for now.

“If the President is not elected to promote America’s interests first, than what for?”
Good point. I think words like that are just for public consumption. Nothing, no money is appropriated, no material shipped, unless it is supporting national interests in some way thats justified. USAID, foreign military exchange, humanitarian assistance, Mil to Mil training, all have national interests they are serving. They have been around since the 50′s and I don’t even think he can change that. He, like Presidents before him, will choose which countries get the lions share of that foriegn aid, the rest will be on status quo for the duration. Finding out which nations he concentrates on with foreign aid will say a lot about him. Couple of policy things to look for in the future…
China/Taiwan policy. Current policy (which hasn’t changed for years) is the “One China” policy but only through peaceful unification. There is a commitment to the defense of Taiwan from agressive action. Will this change?
Colombia – The current agreement with Colombia that differs from the Clinton administration is that US assistance there can help the Colombian government against the FARQ, a communist revolutionary group. Under Clinton, the US was prohibited from assisting, under Bush that changed to helping the Colombians. Will it revert back? Bad news if it does.
Pakistan – Previous policy was to treat them as a sovereign ally. The Pakistani government is in a touch situation, with its northern lands essentially the wild west. Their military is extremely reluctant to conduct operations inside the country against those northern tribes. Our stance was to pressure, not force. We also would conveniently take the blame for strikes in Pakistan at the protest of the government, which I’m sure they knew about but the government could save face with its population.
BMD – Ballistic Missile Defense has a very real purpose. Even under Clinton, development slowed but continued. NK has the range to reach our western sea board, Iran has the range to reach Israel. Japan, Israel, and Poland all have purchased portions or full BMD systems. They will be very disapointed if the system goes away.
There’s more, but those are the big ones. It will be interesting to see if these change.

Just as a CEO doesn’t micro manage but rather issues top down objective, President Obama doesn’t need to get into specifics. Policy fulfillment takes place underneath the surface.
Give us a break critics. Obama had 1 hour to build up his audience’s receptors.
It will take several years. One thing is true, not one of you or anybody else that you can think of could do what he did.

Hasan Faris – Sorry for not replying right away. You are being unrealistic if you expect substance from Obama. This is image over substance. I thought the speech to be a mix of platitudes, half-truths, historical inaccuracies & distortions, & avoidance of anything that might be construed as offensive to Muslims, politically correct smoke & mirrors.
But in my opinion, Islam MUST be confronted. Let me be clear, by the way.
Many Muslims are fine, decent people DESPITE an Islamic brainwashing. But the ideology remains a terrible totalitarian ideology that makes a mockery of any concepts of human & individual rights.
I am very much against the ideology which has nothing in common with any normal, modern conception of human values.
I lived with it most of my adult life. Many of my friends were ex-Muslims who were very fearful of expressing any opinions.
You are absolutely correct in wanting Obama to say something of substance but considering his venue, this would have gone over like a lead balloon. As it ios, even this rather vacuous collection of platitudes will be much criticised in the Muslim world.

J House: Throw a long time statregic ally like Israel under the bus? To follow your flawed logic, why don’t we just abandon the UK as well since they have not returned Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic?

“My candle burns at both ends; IT WILL NOT LAST THE NIGHT; But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends It gives a lovely light.
Edna St Vincent Millay

===One thing is true, not one of you or anybody else that you can think of could do what he did.===
What did he do?

If it’s good enough for 53% of American voters….posted by Foghorn Leghorn
And by reading different posts 50% regret it.

“It’s funny to see how many here accept the status quo of endless death and war,”
Endless death and war isn’t for us to decide. It’s been part of every diverse culture since man began scribbling on stone. It’s part of human nature. We pride ourselves on the ability to control it, but then to blame the US for others inability to control it is denying reality. Our nation cannot make the decisions of other countries for them. Shia muslims have been fighting Sunni muslims for centuries. Arabs have been fighting Jews for centuries. Serbians have been fighting Kosovo for centuries.
Just because we adopt a stance of continuous peace doesn’t mean they will, or even want to. You highlight the extreme lack of education on foreign history and culture. A serbian speaking in a class for the military, recounted a battle where the residents of Kosovo won a battle and left the dead Serbians on the battlefield, denying Serbian families to bury their dead. They were eaten by birds in a horrific sight. The speaker was in tears in the class and you could tell this touched him deeply and brought rage to his heart.
That battle took place in the 13th century.
You think nice words and plattitudes are going to get them to forget that when its that emotional to them after 700 years? Your in a dream world.
Doesn’t mean you don’t encourage it, and promote it. But snobbish and uneducated comments like yours really only highlight your sheltered life and narrow education, but yet convey some moral superiority and a self percieved high intelligence.

The only trouble with speeches and treaties is that .. once they are over or signed off on.. everyone goes back to the same conflicts, with the same attitude.
I was a wonk that went to every seminar and training session and convention that my firm would let me attend.. afterwards I would take what I learned and apply it to my job for two or three weeks.. then reality would hit and I would go right back to doing what I always had done .. in the first place.

Of course you can always point to a speech and say, “It was just a speech.”
And after 8 years of scary slogans and feel good statements, I can see why a lot of Obama’s critics would slouch back into the cynicism.
I mean, if my favorite President was GWB and he revealed himself to be somewhat inept and hollow, I would expect that Obama would be more inept and hollow.
What matters is not so much the speech, but what comes next. Part of this will depend on what the President does. But some will depend on what Congress does. What the courts do. And, ultimately, what the American people do.
In a Democracy, the President is a representative of the people. If we want him to “fail” and work hard to see this happen, then maybe our wish will come true.

moderate and borneo…
good comments… thanks….

“It’s funny to see how many here accept the status quo of endless death and war,”
—————–
KR:”Doesn’t mean you don’t encourage it, and promote it. But snobbish and uneducated comments like yours really only highlight your sheltered life and narrow education, but yet convey some moral superiority and a self percieved high intelligence.”
—————–
Why get so indignant KR? Regardless of education it just seems like common sense. You for example post continually about how this conflict has been going on for centuries as if there is no hope for a change. If that is not so then please explain what else we’re supposed to do to try and bring about peace. If you say there is no way, then you are resigning us to endless war.

“You for example post continually about how this conflict has been going on for centuries as if there is no hope for a change. If that is not so then please explain what else we’re supposed to do to try and bring about peace. If you say there is no way, then you are resigning us to endless war.”
Because realizing the deep and ancient conflict between the parties is key to trying to end it. Think about it, we have a different leader every 4 to 8 years come in with lofty goals of peace (no matter the party) and we come accross as arrogant and uneducated on their history.
But I have issue that we, the US, an outside party, somehow have the influence to create peace. If your a parent, and your two boys begin to fight and it turns physical, you as a parent would get inbetween them and force them to separate yes? Now same scenario, you stand 10 feet away and yell hey stop that, but they keep on fighting. You did nothing.
So what I have issue with is the premise that talking will induce peace. It will not. The only way to peace in that region is through the parties of that region, not us. We could and should encourage it, but to put blind faith in dialogue is really only blindness.
So if you want to get between them in that fight, you better be ready to throw a few punches and take a few punches because that is the only thing that will have the impact you seek. But whats our right to do that? There is none.
So we come to the harsh conclusion, peace is not always achievable. And if you truely do want to achieve peace there, I seriously doubt we as an outside nation would have the willingness or acceptability to force peace.
There are times when there are no soltions, or the solution has too much risk to engage in it.
3,000 years of their history shows this clearly.

KR, you are close to right, but a couple of small corrections, if I may:
The Roman Empire did not become Christian at the time of Constantine. Yes, Constantine was the first emperor to convert to Christianity and he did issue the Edict of Milan, ushering in tolerance of Christianity throughout the empire. And yes, he was not baptised and thus officially become Christian, most evidence indicates, until he was on his deathbed– postponement of baptism until the end of life was a common practice in his time, so that you could not have time to commit fresh sins post-baptism.
But no, that was not when the Roman Empire “converted” to Christianity– that didn’t happen until 380. It was Theodosius, the last emperor of an undivided Roman empire, who decreed Christianity the “official,” and thus only acceptable, religion of the state. He extinguished the flame of the Vestal Virgins and removed the Altar of Victory from the Roman Senate (both important in Roman pagan religion).
Now on to the Crusades– I think you make an excellent point that the Crusades were not a movement to destroy Islam. And yes, the term Crusade was not used in the beginning– as you say, sort of, and they were indeed armed pilgrimages (note spelling). Pilgrimage had a long and honored history in Christianity (and in Islam– the Hajj). Muslim control of Jerusalem and the “holy lands” was limiting Christian access to holy sites when Urban II called upon European Christians to travel to the Middle East to aid the Christians there.
And as you are no doubt aware, there was a movement to take the Iberian peninsula back from the Muslims there– the reconquista– which took place, off and on, from the late 700s (when the Muslims conquered the Visigoths) until 1492. The reconquista was subsumed under the Crusader movement in later years.
Thanks for reminding people that we need to study history. Hope you don’t mind a few minor quibbles with your statements.

“And as you are no doubt aware, there was a movement to take the Iberian peninsula back from the Muslims there– the reconquista– which took place, off and on, from the late 700s (when the Muslims conquered the Visigoths) until 1492.”
I’ll have to admit that I only went into detail post 900 AD, that being the time stamp of the “official” crusades. I read a little about the beginnings of Islamic conquerings under Mohammad but soon jumped to Urban II. The next area of focus I went to was the history of Spain and how this supposedly aggressive Christiandom left Spain to fend for itself against Islamic occupation for years. Interesting reading. Then to see silly movies like Kingdom of Heaven and think that some poor saps out there were taking that as history.

Check out the seal on the lectern when Obama gave his speech in Cairo. It doesn’t have the outer circle which says “Seal of the President of the United States”, just the eagle picture in the middle, surrounded by a circle of stars. Is that significant??

KR, my fingers get ahead of my brain, too. It’s good that you are always learning and expanding your understanding. Now we need to work on the president– who today claimed in his speech to be “a student of history.” And yet he did not see what was wrong in claiming that “in ancient times and in our times” the Muslim communities did something or other, which of course is impossible because there WERE no Muslim communities in ancient times. Islam is a relatively young religion– Muhammad’s first encounter with Gabriel (Jabril) came in 610. Islam began in the medieval era. Yes, I know I’m picking nits, but when the WH brags incessantly about the care that went into that speech and the attention to detail Obama lavished on it, the nits stand out.

I wonder what the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 are thinking right now.
Posted by: dazey
they are probably thinking,… how could Bush & Cheney let 9/11 happen……

Question, thanks for the response. Let me address your second point first– when I referred to “muslim communities doing something-or-other” I was not intending to denigrate the achievements of the Muslims, some of which the president outlined in his speech. I was simply using shorthand rather than continuing the quote, because I was focused on the “ancient” in the quote, not the rest of the sentence. Sorry for the sloppiness of my writing, because I did not want to imply I had anything but appreciation of the accomplishments of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates.
You could also have mentioned that major innovations in banking where developed in Baghdad during the caliphate. And not only was medical education extremely advanced in Muslim areas in the medieval and early modern period, but they “invented” the modern notion of a hospital, or bimaristan. (Of course, “Arabic” numerals and the use of positional notation and the zero were borrowed by the Muslims from India, but the system was spread from its origins by the vast empire.)
Oops, this is getting long and I’m trying to keep my comments shorter than in the past. So I’ll stop here and respond to your other point, about the use of the term ancient, in a separate comment. Again, I’m sorry my hasty comment left the impression I was not willing to give credit to the Muslim innovators for their many laudable accomplishments.

Now, Question, to address your response to my comment about the use of “ancient” in reference to the Muslims. I would respectfully but forcefully disagree with you on this point. It is a matter of periodization, and I make simply taking issue with language, not implying any inferiority or superiority of various religions or cultures.
Let me respond to your specific points. First you write, “By your assertions, if Islam existed by 630AD, that’s about 1400 years ago. I’d say that’s pretty ancient.” No, that’s precisely my point. It was a long time ago, but everything a long time ago is not actually ancient. If the president were speaking colloquially at that point, as in, “We can’t keep refighting the Vietnam War– that’s ancient history,” I would agree with you that he used the term properly. But that was not the way he was using the term.
Then you write, “More technically, 630 is not quite in the medieval times and is, rather, part of the later period of the ancient times (marked by classical civilizations such as in the Far East — Japan and China and in Africa — Egypt and Axum).”
See, that’s my point. Historians divide the past into large chronological chunks and label those chunks. Now, some people argue about the utility of the labels and point out that history does not unfold in neat thousand-year periods. But we do not confuse events and people from, say, the early modern period with events and people from the classical era.
Now most people only think of history as divided into three large periods– ancient, medieval, modern. That seems to be the periodization scheme you are using, Question. Even by that standard, Islam begins in the medieval period. Using the tripartite division, ancient would constitute history from the development of civilization until roughly 500 A.D. But most historians actually divide history into smaller chunks, and distinguish “ancient”– from the beginnings of civilization to roughly 500 B.C. (or bce, for you younger crowd)– from “classical”— beginning roughly 500 b.c. and ending roughly 500 a.d. (or c.e.). That is the periodization that I use and that tons of world history textbooks use.
“In fact, Prophet Muhammad sent his followers to the Axumite Empire (which is very much part of the ancient times) to be received by Negus Armah.” Not sure I understand why you want to label the Axumites, who flourished from 100 to 800 AD, as “ancient.” Yes, their civilization began in the classical period and continued into the medieval period. So? Egypt still exists but I do not think that modern Egyptian culture could be labelled “ancient.”
No, I do not think Christianity existed in “ancient” times. Using the periodization I support, Christianity was born in the classical era. But if you prefer the tripartite division,then of course it began in the ancient rather than medieval period. I’m not sure I can follow your argument about relative ages of the two religions based on when their scriptures were canonized. Yes, both scriptures were written down in their final form years after they were originally circulated. No argument there.
Yes, there is the issue of religious people feeling they trace their lineage back past the starting point of their religion– christians and muslims both trace themselves back to abraham, of course, just like the jewish people do. But just as most christians do not argue that Moses was a christian, muslims do not argue that he was a muslim. A prophet, yes, but not a Muslim, because he lived prior to the revelation of the Quran (and for Christians, prior to the Incarnation). In fact, some Muslim scholars generally divide history into only two periods– before Islam (jihilya) and with Islam.
Regardless, 610 (the first Quran revelation) and 632 (death of Muhammad) are dates in the medieval era. And that is no big deal. I certainly don’t mean to denigrate Islam by labelling it a religion of medieval origin– the middle ages is the most dynamic and interesting period in human history, in my opinion. I always bristle when someone uses “medieval” in a pejorative sense. (And don’t get me started on “dark ages”– argh)
Thanks for making me revisit my previous statements. Yes, I’m still comfortable with them. I’m enjoying the exchange (but know from past experience we’ll get complaints from other commentators. *G*)

Hasan, Islamic scholars consider all of the prophets as muslims (those who submit) because they all worshiped the one true God. They revere Abraham (Ibrahim) as the first monotheist, worshiping the deity they refer to as Allah. That does not mean they consider him the first Muslim with a capital M, because that only began with the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. Ibrahim lived during the Jihilya.
BTW, Hasan, could you help explain the president’s reference to zakat? I asked in an earlier comment but it was long and I think folks are overlooking the question. I really do not know about what “counts” as legitimate zakat and what does not. I would appreciate any guidance from practicing Muslims or those who have knowledge of the practice.

Hasan, thank you very much! I assumed the charitable giving needed to be targeted, but did not want to jump to conclusions. Now I understand.

Page doesn’t seem to load in Opera, am I doing something wrong?