Hey, he said it, not me:
Just a slip of the tongue.
And this was a slip of a disk.
I’m just funnin’ with you. Of course Obama is Christian. He goes to church every third Easter. (Church just isn’t the same since Jeremiah Wright hung up his vestments.)
But that doesn’t mean he’s not an expert on Islam. Why, he’s practically Bernard Lewis on steroids!
In his speech on September 11 announcing that the US would commence limited operations against Islamic State, US President Barack Obama insisted, “ISIL, [i.e. Islamic State] is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”
To be sure, it is hard to see how any human faith can countenance IS’s actions. For the past several months, on a daily basis, new videos appear of IS fighters proudly, openly and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. This week for instance, a video emerged of an IS slave market in Raqqah, Syria, where women and girls are sold as sex slaves to IS fighters.
Indeed. North Korea and East Germany have (had) “Democratic” in their names. Didn’t make them so.
This is a little different, however:
Despite the glaring contradiction between divinity and monstrosity, the fact is that IS justifies every single one of its atrocities with verses from the Koran.
IS referred to its sex slave market in Raqqah for instance as the “Booty Market… for what your right hands possess.”
The phrase “what your right hands possess” is a Koranic verse (4:3) that permits the sexual enslavement of women and girls by Muslim men.
Whether it is mainstream Islamic jurisprudence or not to embrace the enslavement of women and girls as concubines is not a question that Obama – or any US leader for that matter – is equipped to answer. And yet, Obama spoke with absolute certainty when he claimed that IS is not Islamic.
You could substitute Al Qaeda, Hamass, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, and probably fifty other Islamic terror organizations. Not Islamic, says Obama.
But he knows what is:
Obama speaks with similar conviction whenever he refers to Iran as “The Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Obama’s consistent deference to the Iranian regime, exposed by his studious use of the regime’s name for itself whenever he discusses Iran indicates that at a minimum, he is willing to accept the regime’s claim that it is an Islamic regime. In other words, he is willing to accept that everything about the Iranian regime is authentic Islam. Similarly, if he is right that “no religion condones the killing of innocents,” then that means that the “Islamic Republic” similarly does not condone the killing of innocents.
Of course, there is a problem here. In fact, there are two problems here.
First, in its treatment of its own people, the Iranian regime condones and actively engages in the killing of innocents, the vast majority of whom are Muslims. The Islamic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran invokes the Koran to justify its killing.
Likewise, the political imprisonment, torture and general repression of Iranians from all faiths are justified in the name of Islam.
Obama is negotiating with the mullahs over nuclear weapons. Not their abuse of women, not their treatment of gays, not their virulent antisemitism, not their medieval mindset. Those are all okay. And given that they are okay, he wants only to limit the nuclear weaponization of the mullahs who impose those actions and beliefs.
Do you see the problem here? Whether we’re good and they’re bad, or the other way around, we could not be more dissimilar. What is there to talk about? Is it our position that they can have one a-bomb, two if they’re small? Or just promise not to aim them at Israel?
It’s okay to talk, I guess, but what do we have to talk about? The Patriots? (What do you want to bet that those a-hole ayatollahs like Manning over Brady. I’d bomb them just for that.) At a certain point, you have to stand up and leave. You and I might say “You’ll hear from my lawyer.” A president—a real president—would say “You’ll hear from my Air Force.” Or rather not hear.