HOME May-June 2009 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web



by Robert Spencer


Here is the text as prepared for delivery, provided by the White House, via USA Today, June 4 -- with my comments interspersed [ in red]:

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning,

...whose Grand Sheikh, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, has given his approval — on Islamic grounds — to suicide bombing.[1]

and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

According to Islamic law, a Muslim may only extend this greeting -- Peace be upon you -- to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, "Peace be upon those who are rightly guided," i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims. Islamic law is silent about what Muslims must do when naive non-Muslim Islamophilic Presidents offer the greeting to Muslims.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

"Co-existence and cooperation"? When and where, exactly?

Note that Obama lists only ways in which the West has, in his view, mistreated the Islamic world. Not a word about the jihad doctrine, not a word about Islamic supremacism and the imperative to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as dhimmis. Not a word about the culture of hatred and contempt for non-Muslims that existed long before the spread of American culture ("modernity and globalization") around the world, which Obama D'Souzaishly suggests is responsible for the hostility Muslims have for the West.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

The idea that the jihadists are a "small but potent minority of Muslims" is universally accepted dogma, but has no evidence to back it up. The evidence that appears to back it up is highly tendentious -- check out [2] how Dalia Mogahed (now an Obama adviser) and John Esposito cooked survey data from the Islamic world to increase the number of "moderates."

And of course it was by no means only "the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians" that "has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights." It was also the Islamic texts and teachings that inspired those attacks that have fueled this perception. But Obama is not singular in declining to acknowledge the existence of such texts and teachings. In that he is following George W. Bush and every influential American politician, diplomat, and analyst.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.


I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

No word, of course, of the Sharia laws that impugn the dignity of human beings who are women or non-Muslim by denying them various basic rights.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust,

Once again, he assumes that it is his responsibility, and America's, to dispel mistrust that Muslims feel for the West. It is not the responsibility of Muslims to do anything to gain the trust of the U.S. or the West in general.

nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran


tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims.

Note that he avoids saying his father was a Muslim, which would open him to charges of apostasy.

As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

The idea that Islamic culture was once a beacon of learning and enlightenment is a commonly held myth. In fact, much of this has been exaggerated, often for quite transparent apologetic motives. The astrolabe was developed, if not perfected, long before Muhammad was born. The zero, which is often attributed to Muslims, and what we know today as "Arabic numerals" did not originate in Arabia, but in pre-Islamic India. Aristotle's work was preserved in Arabic not initially by Muslims at all, but by Christians such as the fifth century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. Another Christian, Huneyn ibn-Ishaq (809-873), translated many works by Aristotle, Galen, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac. His son then translated them into Arabic. The Syrian Christian Yahya ibn 'Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic, and wrote one of his own, The Reformation of Morals. His student, another Christian named Abu 'Ali 'Isa ibn Zur'a (943-1008), also translated Aristotle and others from Syriac into Arabic. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate -- not by a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians.

In sum, there was a time when it was indeed true that Islamic culture was more advanced than that of Europeans, but that superiority corresponds exactly to the period when Muslims were able to draw on and advance the achievements of Byzantine and other civilizations. But when the Muslim overlords had taken what they could from their subject peoples, and the Jewish and Christian communities had been stripped of their material and intellectual wealth and thoroughly subdued, Islam went into a period of intellectual decline from which it has not yet recovered.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."

Of course it doesn't. But does that statement hold true the other way around?

And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it have been more accurate for Obama to say "won a Nobel Prize"? Isn't Ahmed Zewail the only U.S.-based Muslim to have won a Nobel Prize?

And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.

I have an Arabic Qur'an and 19 different translations of the Qur'an in my office -- 18 into English and one into Spanish. I'm not sure that the fact that Jefferson had a Qur'an in his personal library necessarily means what Obama is suggesting it means.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't.

I couldn't agree more!

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Assuming that such stereotypes actually exist, and that negativity toward Islam among non-Muslims isn't entirely a reaction to jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, why is this his responsibility? Is it his responsibility as President to fight against negative stereotypes of Christians as ignorant racist yahoos? Is it his responsibility as President to fight against negative stereotypes of Hindus? Jews? Black Americans? American Southerners? Californians? Or is it only his responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam? If the latter, why? On what basis? By what justification?

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Good, but not good enough. He should have pointed out not only our founding principles, but the fact that America is the only country that has ever taken it upon itself to extend a helping hand to its defeated enemies. America has spent billions upon billions to try to help improve Islamic societies -- often this money has been spent in a misguided and ignorant fashion, but there is no denying the good intentions. It would have been good of Obama to point that out also.

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President.

I still remember when it was "racist" and "Islamophobic" to note the President's middle name.

But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

"Nearly seven million American Muslims" -- he is accepting the inflated population figures pushed by Islamic advocacy groups for obvious political reasons.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Platitudes and naivete. No mention of the Islamic supremacist agenda that would deny the right of so many to live with dignity -- but I am sure he doesn't even believe that such an agenda exists.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.


For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.

He picked two places where he believes that the chief victims are Muslims.

That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests.

Yes, and often they have done so under the divine imperative to make non-Muslims "feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

In the interest of such sharing, no doubt, Obama made sure that Muslim Brotherhood members attended this speech.[3] Yet the Brotherhood is dedicated, in its own words, to "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." Doesn't that count as an attempt to elevate "one nation or group of people over another"?

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension.


Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

Unfortunately, the definition of "innocent" is not always and everywhere the same. Some jihadists consider no non-Muslim to be innocent.[4] This is an important point, since Obama is appealing to Muslims to oppose the killing of innocents, by which he means American non-combatants as on 9/11 -- but many of his hearers don't consider such people to be innocent:

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

He is appealing to Muslims, as I explained above, on the basis of premises that not all of them share.

Incidentally, his reference is to Qur'an 5:32. 5:33 doesn't quite continue the beautiful spirit here, mandating crucifixion or amputation for those who fight against Allah and Muhammad.

The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.

No mention, no awareness, of the imperative within Islamic texts and teachings to subjugate Infidels.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Based on the erroneous assumption that jihad violence is a reaction to American actions, and so American kindness will dispel it. The South African Mufti Ebrahim Desai, the imam of an "Ask the Imam" feature at a Muslim question and answer site, was once asked this question (spelling and grammar as in the original): "The west is often criticised by Muslims for many reasons, such as allowing women go to work. But shouldnt the west also recieve praise because its always them who intervene when muslims are being tortured, they stopped Milosovic kiling muslims and sent their own troops to the country, they are usually the first to send aid when theres a flood, they are also intervening in Isreal and condeming them killing Muslims, so should we appreciate their efforts or not?"

Desai's answer was brief: "In simple the Kuffaar [unbelieverss] can never be trusted for any possible good they do. They have their own interest at heart."

One man's opinion? Sure. But it is an opinion with deep roots in Islamic tradition, and it would therefore be naïve to dismiss it as simply Desai's own mean-spiritedness. The Qur'an contains a warning against those who turn "in friendship to the Unbelievers...If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what hath been revealed to him, never would they have taken them for friends and protectors, but most of them are rebellious wrong-doers" (5:80-81). It also tells Muslims that "never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion" (2:120). These are words that Obama should consider carefully.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron. And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

Good luck with that. It hasn't happened in all the years since 9/11. Why will it happen now? On what basis does Obama think or hope it will?

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews — is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation.

Occupation? Why did no one ever complain about Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of Palestinian land between 1948 and 1967, when they controlled Gaza and the West Bank?

And those "daily humiliations" might not be so bad if so many of them hadn't gloried in blowing up Israeli civilians. Israel took steps to protect its citizens. If the Palestinians didn't have a culture of hatred and violence, those steps would not have been necessary and would not have been taken.

So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

Intolerable? But it wasn't intolerable for Israelis to put up with the daily threat of being blown up in pizza parlors or on buses?

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

Such a state will be used as a base for further jihad attacks against Israel, just as Gaza has been since the Israeli withdrawal. But the lessons of history never seem to count in these calculations.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.

The Palestinians never have. What will Obama do to change that now? Apparently his only concrete idea is to put more pressure on the Israelis, although he talks a good game:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

His comparison of the Palestinians with black Americans is unconscionable. Are the Israelis Bull Connor and George Wallace? For the comparison to hold, black Americans must have been launching daily rocket attacks against white civilians, and blowing themselves up at those segregated lunch counters during crowded lunch hours. Remember that?

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build.

People have been calling upon them to do that for years. They have never heeded the call. Mortimer Zuckerman and others spent $14 million to give them Israeli greenhouses during the Gaza turnover, so they would have a way to make a living. They turned those greenhouses into weapons smuggling tunnels.

But remember, the lessons of history don't count.

The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

Yes, and Khaled Meshaal will fly Buraq to Washington to finalize his assent to all these things.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Absurd moral equivalence. Peaceful settlements on land to which Israel has a legitimate claim, versus genocidal bloodlust.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Never mind the many indications that that humanitarian crisis is a product of the Palestinian propaganda machine.[5]

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.


America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Not "everyone" knows this. Many Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist -- ever. Many Israelis know that a Palestinian state would be a jihad base working for the destruction of Israel.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

Using Islamic locutions will only lead many Muslims to believe that Obama is a Muslim, which could get him into some difficult situations.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Dangerous naivete.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

Does that include Sharia?

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

He doesn't seem to understand that in Islam there is a very different understanding of the meaning of "justice" and "freedom."

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition.

More historical myth. Even Maria Rosa Menocal, in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, admits that the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus. She says: "The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax — no Muslims paid taxes — and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals."

So much for that "proud tradition of tolerance." Also, historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf observes that "much of this new legislation aimed at limiting those aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant position of Islam." After enumerating a list of laws much like Menocal's, he adds: "Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply designed to underscore the position of the dimmis as second-class citizens."

If Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably and productively only with Christians and Jews relegated by law to second-class citizen status, then al-Andalus has absolutely no reason to be lionized in our age. Obama should know that the laws of dhimmitude give his claim of a "proud tradition of tolerance" the same hollow ring as the stories of prominent American blacks from the slavery and Jim Crow eras: yes, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington were great men, but their accomplishments not only do not erase or contradict the records of the oppression of their people, but render them all the more poignant and haunting. Whatever the Christians and Jews of al-Andalus accomplished, they were still dhimmis. They enjoyed whatever rights and privileges they had not out of any sense of the dignity of all people before God, or the equality of all before the law, but at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords.

I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

"People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul." -- Obama

"If anyone changes his religion, kill him." -- Muhammad, the prophet of Islam

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

It is good to see him mention this. It will be interesting to see if he backs it up with action on the behalf of Maronites or Copts.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Will he make sure that zakat doesn't go for jihad, as it has in the past -- cf. the Holy Land Foundation's millions for Hamas?

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Will Obama speak out for the women who have been threatened and even killed for not wearing clothes that Islamic supremacists found acceptable?[6]

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

Platitudes and naivete.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

How does he propose to overcome the culture that teachings like this create? The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223).

The Qur'an also declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3).

It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11).

Worst of all, the Qur'an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures "shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4).

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence.

Britney causes jihad: Dinesh D'Souza, call your office! Maybe the far-seeing conservative writer can get a job in the Obama Administration, now that Obama is suggesting that he shares D'Souza's preposterous thesis that America's immoral pop culture, exported to the Islamic world, caused these pious, modest people to react by taking down the World Trade Center. In reality, the immorality of the West has been a feature of Islamic anti-Western writings since long before Britney Spears took to the stage. Jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb was scandalized by the dancing at a church social in Greeley, Colorado in 1948. And before he even went to America, Qutb wrote Social Justice In Islam, calling for Islamic Sharia law to rule the world. The immorality he saw in American culture did not itself turn him against America, but illustrated for him why America was unfit to rule the world, and why only Islam was fit for that role. That immorality was never for Qutb the root cause of his opposition to America.

And eight centuries before Qutb's birth, a recurring feature of Muslim polemic against the Crusaders was the sexual immorality of the "Franks." According to an anonymous poet at the time of the First Crusade, the Europeans completely overturned the moral order: "What is right is null and void and what is forbidden is made licit." Muslims will always charge non-Muslims with immorality unless they adopt Islamic moral norms. But this alleged immorality no more causes the jihad than do American policies toward Israel and Iraq.

Now Santa promises gifts:

Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations — including my own — this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities — those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

What will we get in return for all those gifts? He thinks we will get good will. We have spent billions already, however, and have no good will to show for it.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress.

Seeing things realistically is not to "stoke the flames of division," although I am sure he will conflate them.

Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

And over and out, in a flourish of naive Rodney-Kingism.








Readers' Comments

"Obama in Cairo"
Melanie Phillips
4th June 2009 3670626/obama-in-cairo.thtml

The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

This is boilerplate misrepresentation by Islamists and their apologists. The fact is that it is Judaism which teaches this as a cardinal precept. The Talmud states:

Whoever destroys a single soul, he is guilty as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whoever preserves a single soul, it is as though he had preserved a whole world.
The Koran appropriated this precept — but altered it to mean something very different. Thus (verses 5:32-5:35):
That was why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet many among them, even after that, did prodigious evil in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. (My emphasis)

He is a student of history like Jimbo carter was a nuclear physicist. Carter finally admitted he'd had a 8-week course in atomics. Betcha Obamaniac read a crib on World History. I wonder how long it took him to get through the 10 pages.

... one noticed by Barcepundit, and fittingly so, because it relates to Spain, Barcepundit's country. In praising the history of Islamic tolerance, Obama told his audience that Islam even showed its tolerance ... during the Inquisition?

"The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition."

Barcepundit couldn't believe his ears. [B]y the time the Spanish Inquisition was created in 1478, Cordoba has been reconquered from Islamic hands almost 150 years earlier, in 1236.

4infidels 68p - 6 weeks ago

Obama uses language to mislead and obfuscate:

He says that it is necessary for "friends" to tell "friends" hard truths which is why he is being so direct with Israel. He then avoids telling Muslims anything that might offend them.

He says both sides have commitments they need to meet. He then offers measurable actions Israel must take while talking vaguely about Palestinian obligations.

He says Israel must end all "settlement activity." Palestinians should "make an effort" to "reduce incitement."

He says that he won't avoid making his speech in Egypt due to its poor record on human rights...just because "they haven't done everything we have asked?" Everything? What exactly have they done that we have asked? Have we even asked anything of Egypt other than perhaps to stop the smuggling of weapons to Hamas, which they didn't do until they realized that those weapons might pose a threat to Egypt? And are "human rights" only of concern when they are a tool for Palestinians in their war against Israel?

He says both sides need to take risks for peace as though Israel didn't put forth an overly generous peace plan in 2000 or make peace deals with Egypt and Jordan or withdraw from Gaza, etc.

He says we need to respect the outcomes of elections and not impose our standards on other countries. I guess this only goes for anti-American, authoritarian and terrorist governments. He has no problem forcing Netanyahu into taking positions that not only go against his values and nation's best interest, but could bring down his government.

I could go on.

gmccal 84p - 1 week ago

"There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

The Golden Rule. Islam doesn't have it. There is one reference in the Hadith to something like it ("None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."), but it is not universal and only applies to Muslim on Muslim relations. This particular Hadith does not have the universalism of the Golden Rule because Islamic jurisprudence believes it only applies to Muslim on Muslim relations. There are other Hadith which clarify the limitation of reciprocity to relations between Muslim brothers:

4infidels 68p - 6 weeks ago

FDR to extend hand in friendship to world's Nazis in speech from Hitler's bunker this June 4th, 1943:

The following weekend, he'll be in Japan attempting to repair relations with the island nation through a talk delivered from Emperor Hirohito's palace.

This comes on the heels of the President's comments made outside Auschwitz that Nazism deserves "respect." Mr. Roosevelt also suggested that the nations of Europe and Asia should advance the Peace Process by making sacrifices, including "Land for Peace."

"We must dialogue with the moderate elements of the Waffen-SS, kamikaze, and banzai units," he declared.

The White House has announced details of Mr. Roosevelt's charm offensive. He plans to bow deeply to both Hitler and Hirohito as a sign of mutual respect, apologize for Pearl Harbor, Midway, and the Holocaust, and reassure both empires of his continued commitment to bankrupting and disarming America in the name of "Main Street."

As a sign of the United States' good will, the President will release members of the German and Japanese militaries captured in combat into American society at taxpayers' expense.

Additionally, American successes in Doolittle's Raid, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and Midway have now been redesignated "Embarrassing Failures of Diplomacy;" the methods used to decipher Japanese communications leading to the American "victory" at Midway have been published in the New York Times, and the Cryptanalytic Unit responsible for the intelligence that gave America the advantage there has been accused of lying by one of Mr Roosevelt's closest allies in Congress.

Plans for actions at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and Normandy have all been postponed and await Nazi and Japanese approval. President Roosevelt also unveiled Executive Order #12071941 establishing "Overseas Contingency Operations Relocation Camps." Americans opposing the President's policies will be designated "extremists" and evaluated for the confiscation of their First through Tenth Amendment Rights.

The Order also gives the president the authority to monitor and suspend all radio, telegraph, and pen-and-paper communications.

Allied leaders could not be reached for comment.

muzzammill - 6 weeks ago

As for the Byzantine contact theory this has been demolished in the first two chapters of Saliba's book and has been dismissed in the scholarly community for decades now (Dimitri Gutas in his Greek Thought, Arab Culture shows this to be disastrously false and a reflection of Western bigotry). The Byzantines oppressed philosophers (e.g. Hypatius) and the libraries were normally sealed off. The Arabs had "appropriated" the learning of antiquity and created a scientific and philosophical renaissance. The Christian translators and physicians were important in the early period but not in the Astronomical revolution of the twelfth to fourteenth centuries and the post-Ghazalian maturation of the sciences (e.g. by al-Jazari in robotics, Ibn Nafis in medicine, Ibn Khaldun in history, Ibn al-Shatir in astronomy etc.). Also the Byzantines were invariable paid by aristocratic Arabs and rulers. Furthermore, the later scientists like Shatir, Tusi, Jazari, Ibn Nafis, Ibn Khaldun were all religious men (theologians, time keepers, administrators etc.) The contact theory does not at all fit our current knowledge.

muzzammil - 6 weeks ago

The zero, which is often attributed to Muslims, and what we know today as "Arabic numerals" did not originate in Arabia, but in pre-Islamic India.

This is true, but what this shows is the Arabs had a keen interest in abstract mathematical concepts, and this is expressed in Khawarizmi's early work which greatly expanded the structure of Algebra. Trigonometry was also developed by the Muslims (esp. Tusi). The fact the numbers are called "Arabic numerals" is significant as it shows Arabic knowledge was being exported to the Latins through a culture of cultural exchange that the Muslims had created (hence, it is not found between India-Europe but is found between Arabs-Indians and Arabs-Europe).


furthermore, the mention of Morocco is an utter fabrication - considering what the Sultan did is like considering what Laffayet did - speaking of which the French signed a treaty to assist us against the French in 1777 - what did the Moroccan's do? Kidnap "infidels" until our first navy stopped them. So much for "first country".

this is what Jefferson reported as being said to him about the Koran by a Muslim envoy in France. "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

One more fabrication - that our oldest diplomatic property in the world is in Tangiers! Bullshit.

PS. The treaty with the Sultan of Morocco was not signed until 1986!! So where the hell is the proof for 1777?

THIS IS TOTALLY ORWELLIAN. Everywhere you look on the net, its sheer propaganda and it originated with the Morocco-US chamber of commerce and trade associations, and was endorsed by the State Department, and is now being spewed by this "Hussein" running our country!

I encourage Mr. Spencer to dispel this myth!!

Zack Highstreet

Moderate Unicorns Part III

Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany's sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.

Placing hope in 'The Moderate Muslim' is like searching for unicorns in the forest.


The president's speech is so detestable from the beginning that I can't bother finishing it. He tells a Muslim audience of how Ellison was sworn in on Jefferson's Koran but doesn't explain that Jefferson read the Koran to gain an understanding of the faith responsible for holding Americans hostage in Algiers. You might have the impression John Adams respected the laws of Islam but here's what he really thought of that religion :"THE ESSENCE OF HIS (Mohammed's) DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE" (Adam's capital letters). I gather President Adams' "tolerance" toward Islam is a little musunderstood by President Haremboy.

I'm sure there's more crap in this speech but I can't read this.


For those who wish to find out about the history of architecture, and the Muslim appropriation of the squinch and other features of Byzantine buildings -- the Dome of the Rock is a knock-off of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and as Luxenberg's study of the Arabic, but non-Islamic inscriptions high on the walls inside of the Dome demonstrates, may not even be a Muslim building -- can be found in standard works of architecture, including the many editions of the guide by Sir Bannister Fletcher.

As for science and the supposed Islamic contribution to it, so much exaggerated, one might well begin with Toby Huff's book, and then the review of that book by George Saliba, and then with Huff's reply to Saliba's increasingly hysterical tone, and then to Saliba's truly hysterical reply to Huff. One could also read Stanley Jaki on the history of science and its relation to Christinaity, or any of the new works on Galileo. or on Copernicus, that greatly modify the earlier view of a complete hostility of Christianity and science. Copernicus had been a professor of canon law. And as for Isaac Newton, a devout Christian and a finder out of what he considered to be God's laws that regulated the universe, see any number of historians, but perhaps begin with that of the late I. B. Cohen.

Take away the Christian and Jewish translators of Greek texts into Arabic (and of only a few, not of all, of Aristotle's texts), ignore the fact that very little of what they translated had any welcome reception at all in the world of Islam, take away the appropriated discoveries in mathematics, science, and technology from the Hindus and Chinese, take away the discovieres made by those who, while they may have borne names that to us are confusedly taken as meaning they were Arabs and Muslims, when so many of them were Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, take away those who were new -- within a generation or two -- Muslims, but who had received their intellectual formation within a still largely non-Muslim milieu, take away from the handful -- a dozen or at most two dozen -- names of Muslims who were the most famous intellecutal figures in what we tend to accept as High Islamic Civilization and who were practically free-thinkers and in danger of being persecuted by orthodox Muslims and such -- take away all of these categories, and what exactly do you have left? In art, calligraphy, chiefly Qur'anic, and mosques that relied on the Byzantine squinch, and the odd genius like Sinan. In science, outside of a lone genius like Al-Khwarizmi in mathematics, practically no one, and in science, outside of optics, no one. That's aboutr it, for the Great Achievements of High Islamic Civilization.

Read Saliba. Go right ahead. And then read Toby Huff, Stanley Jaki, Charles Singer, Giorgio de Santillana, George Sansom, and all the rest -- right up to the present day, with the enormous expansion in the number of historians of science, all over the still-not-quite-idiotized Western academic world.

See for yourself, in these histories of 400 or 500 pages, the ten pages devoted to the contributions of "the Islamic world." Then, when you are done reading, go to visit a great museum -- the Metropolitan, the Louvre, the National Gallery in Washington or London, the Prado, the Rijksmuseum, the Uffizi, the Alte Pinakothek. Go ahead, and tell us all about the little room, or two, or possibly now three, where the Sassanian rhytons are to be found, and the ceramics with Arabic-language, but often non-Muslim, inscriptions are to be found (as in the case of the "Islamic ceramics" on display a few years ag at the Art Institute of Chicago, several of which had clearly Christian and Jewish motifs to accompany the Arabic writing), and see what you think about the "Islamic" contribution to art, and how that measures up to Western art, and its fabulous riches, or to the pre-Columbian art of the Americas, or the art of Hindu India, or Buddhist Art, or all the varied arts of China, Korea, Japan, and the pre-Islamic East Indies.

Go ahead. Write and tell us here what you discover. And tell the truth. Don't think it is your business to help along the Self-Esteem of Muslims. Your business is to report the truth. Would that Obama had chosen rather to be silent, than to utter so much nonsense, nonsense that is so easy to expose and to mock.

We're all ears.


Obama said: "Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims." Mr. Spencer stated, in part: "The idea that the jihadists are a 'small but potent minority of Muslims' is universally accepted dogma . . . ."

However, Obama did not say that the "[v]iolent extremists" are Muslims. He said that the "[v]iolent extremists" have exploited tensions in some Muslims. If the "[v]iolent extremists" to whom he referring are Muslims, why did he not say so? If they are not, what is the point he is trying to make? That non-Muslim "[v]iolent extremists" have exploited tensions in some Muslims? If so, who are these non-Muslim "[v]iolent extremists" to which he refers? The point here is that Obama could not even label these "[v]iolent extremists" as Muslim.



I see the internet defaced by bullshit about Morocco and our war of independence - now its mouthed by Hussein and no one dare question it!?

This is an extremely important example of lies. We are seeing Orwell in front of our eyes! If anyone had said something to this effect 20 years ago - it would have been considered preposterous!

In 1777 France signed on with America to join us in our war with England. There is no tangible proof of any recognition of the US by Tangier prior to 1786! Even the British recognized us by then. All of continental europe took part in a blockade of England - including Sweden, Russia, France, etc starting in 1778.

What was the contribution from Tangier? Slave-trading!? The logic underpining this Morocco myth can be applied to our treaties with Native American Tribes - which precede anything taking place in the old world. Equally, there is absolutely no continuity between Morocco and Tangiers from 1777!?


Supposedly our oldest diplomatic property is in Tangiers?! Baloney! There wasn't even a State Department until 1789!!!!

How's that for gross historical ignorance, distortion, and lies.

I am surprised no-one in the anti-Islamic front even cares to notice this!? Aren't you pissed by seeing our history manipulated in this way? FACING FACTS!

I see the internet defaced by bullshit about Morocco and our war of independence - now its mouthed by Hussein and no one dare question it!?

This is an extremely important example of lies. We are seeing Orwell in front of our eyes! If anyone had said something to this effect 20 years ago - it would have been considered preposterous!

In 1777 France signed on with America to join us in our war with England. There is no tangible proof of any recognition of the US by Tangier prior to 1786! Even the British recognized us by then. All of continental europe took part in a blockade of England - including Sweden, Russia, France, etc starting in 1778.

What was the contribution from Tangier? Slave-trading!? The logic underpining this Morocco myth can be applied to our treaties with Native American Tribes - which precede anything taking place in the old world. Equally, there is absolutely no continuity between Morocco and Tangiers from 1777!?


Supposedly our oldest diplomatic property is in Tangiers?! Baloney! There wasn't even a State Department until 1789!!!!

How's that for gross historical ignorance, distortion, and lies.

I am surprised no-one in the anti-Islamic front even cares to notice this!? Aren't you pissed by seeing our history manipulated in this way?


Ok - a few facts: Our first diplomatic mission was established in Liverpool in 1790 (our first consulate). Our consulate in Morocco opened in 1797. It cannot be considered our oldest treaty in force since in 190? Morocco became a French protectorate, and during WWII was an outright French colony.

That is why the Department of State dates our relationship with Morocco to a 1956 treaty. No mention of the one signed in 1786! How's that for discrepancy between law and rhetoric!?

Now about our first treaties - if someone deigns a Sherif's letter as recognition, what to make then of the 1776 outline of our treaties with France?

The American Legation in Tangier cannot be considered as "longest occupied" since it was not occupied since WWII.

Now according to The Continental Congress and the Moroccan-American Treaty of Friendship by Benjamin A. Balogh (full of apologetics, but revealing work) the supposed "Moroccan recognition" dates to a few letters written by the Sherif's Spanish ambassadors to Franklin who was stationed in Paris, and to John Jay stationed in Spain, as the official representatives of the Continental Congress.

How can anyone with a brain claim that Morocco was the first to recognize our independence if we already had Jay and Franklin stationed in Paris and Madrid on behalf of the Continental Congress in a Diplomatic capacity!! Um - excuse me - by 1776 France and Spain extended more than recognition.

Now for the juicy bit - why did we eventually sign a treaty of Friendship with Sherifs of Tangiers?

Pirates working under the banner of the Moroccan government seized an American vessel in October of 178410. This action caused the United States Continental Congress to a decision point: "The depredations of those pirates unless speedily put an end to by making a treaty with them, may prove very injurious to the Commerce of the United States, Congress have taken such steps as they think will accomplish this desirable end"

As an afterthought I offer this read the Treaty with Morocco September 16, 1836. What do you think this means?

It means that after our initial treaty for "Friendship" it meant nothing in terms of piracy which remained condoned by the Sherif - until the Barbary wars of 1836? Because Morocco was among the most committed to harassing our ships.

Obama: The United States Is "One Of The Largest Muslim Countries In The World"

Here is a What-Is-Obama-Smoking? Alert: Indonesia: 200 million Muslims. India: 156 million Muslims. Pakistan: 150 million Muslims. Turkey and Egypt have over 70 million; Iran has over 64 million.
United States: 2.3 million Muslims (according to the Pew Research Center). Even using inflated population figures from several Muslim sites, the U.S.A. doesn't even come close to being among the largest Muslim countries.


Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is author of many articles, monographs and books, including "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West" (Regnery Publishing), and "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).

This article appeared on the June 4, 2009 on Jihad Watch


Return_________________________End of Story___________________________Return

HOME May-June 2009 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web