VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”


Islam- Sword not Pacifism

Andrew Bostom is one of my favorite Counterjihad authors. So when I discovered from the Counter Jihad Report that a Bostom speech was posted on his website a few days ago I was quite pleased to watch it. Below is the entire post from Bostom’s blog which includes the text of the speech.

Bostom talks of the failure of the Bush Administration’s concept of bringing Western democratic principles to overthrown dictatorships and hostile Muslim leadership. In hindsight, Bostom is correct to criticize this Bush Agenda; however, the concept was correct. History has shown that bringing democracy to repressive regimes (e.g. conquered Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII) was and is highly successful. Not only have the citizens flourished when despotism was removed but once repressive regimes have chosen a path of peaceful dialogue and trade with their conquerors. UNFORTUNATELY, the nation-building paradigm does not work in a culture under the domination of a millennia of Islamic cultural brainwashing.

 

JRH 9/1/16

Please Support NCCR

*******************

VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”

By Andrew Bostom

August 28, 2016 1:46 PM

Uncreated, Uncreative Words

Many thanks to Scott Jacobs for uploading the video of my speech last Sunday 8/21/16 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled,Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

The text in its entirety was posted at PJ Media last Monday 8/22/16, with the title, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’.” I was able to present about ~70% of the full text provided below the embedded video.

VIDEO: Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, & the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine'”

Posted by Democracy Broadcasting

Published on Aug 28, 2016

http://DemocracyBroadcasting.com Dr. Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘The Lewis Doctrine’.” Dr. Andrew Bostom examines Dr. Bernard Lewis’ legacy at American Freedom Alliance’s “Islam and Western Civilization Conference” in Los Angeles, 8/21/16.
See: https://pjmedia.com/blog/islam-mindslaughter-and-the-catastrophic-lewis-doctrine/

Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine”

Andrew Bostom

Text of a speech delivered Sunday, August 21, 2016 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

**

Col. Douglas MacGregor is a respected military strategist, who was a heroic tank commander during the 1991 Iraq war. As the Gen McChrystal scandal broke in 2010, Col MacGregor, who attended West Point with McChrystal, and was angered by the US military’s disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts, commented accurately,

The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense

Successful lobbying for that miserably failed utopianism was accomplished by bowdlerizing Islam—indeed mindslaughtering it, a powerful term I will introduce. My discussion will identify the ultimate source of “gravitas” for that bowdlerization process, and key elements of the Islam—not “Islamism,” or “radical Islam”—bowdlerized.

**

Tuesday August 2nd, (2016) Khizr Khan, who achieved notoriety for his condemnation of Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, had the temerity to tell Anderson Cooper “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.” Except when he, Khan, notes it does exist, as in his 1983 essay published in the Houston Journal of International Law, “JURISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF ISLAMIC LAW”, which used the word “Sharia” 8X, including this usage:

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah…”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper did not even challenge Khan’s mendacious, self-contradictory assertion let alone follow-up on Khan’s effusive written praise of two prominent, modern global Sharia promoting ideologues, Said Ramadan, and A.K. Brohi, making plain Khan’s support for so-called “Sharia-based human rights.” The Khan-Cooper exchange illustrates, starkly, the contemporary equivalent of what the great chronicler of Soviet Communist mass murder, Robert Conquest, appositely characterized as MINDSLAUGHTER—a brilliantly evocative term for delusive Western apologetics regarding the ideology of Communism, and the tangible horrors its Communist votaries inflicted. Conquest decried those numerous “Western intellectuals or near intellectuals” of the 1930s through the 1950s whose willful delusions about the Soviet Union, “will be incredible to later students of mental aberration.” He observed,

“One role of the democratic media is, of course, to criticize their own govern­ments, and draw attention to the faults and failings of their own country. But when this results in a transfer of loyalties to a far worse and thoroughly inim­ical culture, or at least to a largely uncritical favoring of such a culture, it becomes a morbid affliction—involving, often enough, the uncritical accep­tance of that culture’s own standards”

His critique of Western media highlights a cultural self-loathing tendency which has persisted and intensified over the intervening decades, and is now manifest in the bowdlerized public discussion of Islam. Tragically, such MINDSLAUGHTERED Islamic discourse extends to an iconic figure in conservative punditry on Islam, while the impact of this doyen’s policymaking advice has been disastrous.

Samuel Huntington acknowledged his indebtedness to Bernard Lewis’s 1990 essay, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” for Huntington’s book title, “The Clash of Civilizations.” Lewis, as Huntington notes (on p. 213), in 1990, had pronounced,

This is no less than a clash of civilizations—that perhaps irrational, but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

 Oracle-like font of Islamic wisdom to a large swath of conservative policymaking elites, Bernard Lewis added this caveat:

 It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.

Despite his own morally equivocating advice, Lewis himself convinced the Bush 2 administration to pursue what became known, aptly, as “The Lewis Doctrine,” which was not only an irrational, but a catastrophic response to the eminently rational Islamic doctrine of jihad.

 Peter Waldman’s methodical, well-sourced Feb 3, 2004 WSJ investigative report (“A Historian’s Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight  Bernard Lewis’s Blueprint—Sowing Arab Democracy—Is Facing a Test in Iraq”) stands as important confirmation of the overarching ideology which spurred the March, 2003 Iraq invasion. Waldman meticulously documented how Lewis exerted profound influence in shaping the Bush II administration’s “Islamic democracy agenda”—invading Iraq being the sine qua non manifestation of this “Lewis Doctrine.” Lewis, as Waldman notes, began evangelizing his “Doctrine” to the highest level Bush II administration officials just over a week after 9/11, accompanied, significantly, by the late Ahmad Chalabi, a likely “vector” of Iranian influence.

Eight days after the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi –now [circa 2/2004] a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council—argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future

Call it the Lewis Doctrine.  ..Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.

Waldman also demonstrated how Lewis successfully indoctrinated the ultimate Bush II administration leadership to pursue his utopian design: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and most likely, National Security adviser (and later Secretary of State), Condoleezza Rice, as well.

I contend, after careful review, that the miserably failed “Lewis Doctrine” was a sham castle of dangerous, MINDSLAUGHTERED misrepresentations built upon four pillars: dhimmitude denial; Islamic Jew-hatred denial; Sharia obfuscation; and Lewis’s own inexplicable volte face on his gimlet-eyed 1950s assessments of Islamic totalitarianism, and “hurriyya,” the Islamic antithesis of Western freedom.

Regarding the imposition of the dhimma, Islam’s humiliating pact of submission for non-Muslims, per Koran 9:29, and the alleged absence of theological Jew-hatred in Islam, Lewis made these oracular, if vacuous and counterfactual, summary pronouncements, across three decades:

[1974] The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled.

[1984] In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic history. For Muslims it is not part of the birth-pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians.

[2006] “dhimmi”-tude [derisively hyphenated] subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews… [is a] myth.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985), unlike Lewis, was a historian, who specialized in the study of Muslim, non-Muslim relations. Goitein, whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993), was Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew University, and a Lewis colleague while at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his prolific writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim-non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Contra Lewis’s uninformed, whitewashed drivel, here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule, that is, “the dhimma covenant,” circa 1970:

[T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by…the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims. Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities

“The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” my own exhaustive treatise, included voluminous materials Lewis never bothered to compile, let alone analyze with comparable intellectual honesty. My careful analyses demonstrated, irrefragably, that the Koran, its classical and modern exegeses by Islam’s greatest commentators, and the traditions of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community, are rife with virulent, conspiratorial Jew-hating motifs that have been acted upon by Muslims, vis-à-vis Jews, across space and time, from the advent of Islam, till now.

The Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. Presently, Al Azhar Koranic litanies of 20 to 25 verses describing fixed negative traits of the Jews are popular, widely disseminated, and endorsed in the writings and public statements of this Vatican of Sunni Islam’s last two Papal equivalents, the late Grand Imam Tantawi, and current Grand Imam al-Tayeb. Such Jew-hating Koranic “highlights” include: Jews as prophet killers, updated in the hadith to include Muhammad himself—allegedly poisoned to death by a Jewess, in a Jewish conspiracy, while the Shiite hadith further hold the Jews responsible for the deaths of Ali, and his son Hussein—meriting permanent debasement and humiliation (Koran 2:61/3:112); Jews as apes, or apes and pigs (Koran 2:65; 5:60, 7:166)—a Koranic epithet Muhammad personally directed at the Jews according to the sira before the Muslims subdued, and he personally slaughtered, by beheading, all the post-pubescent males, some 700-900, of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza; Jews as inveterate conspirators against Islam (the ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Koran 5:64), who harbor the greatest enmity towards the Muslim creed (Koran 5:82). The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear in the Koran: they are the devil’s minions (4:51/60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and pigs (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

A brilliant, scrupulously documented 72pp/202 ref 1937 essay in French by rabbi, and Islamic scholar Georges Vajda on the hadith (which Lewis never analyzed, but I felt privileged to have fully translated into English for the first time, and included in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), demonstrated that stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic in these traditions. Rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “…sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.” Vajda’s research on the hadith further illustrates how Sunni Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility toward Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Antichrist— and, per other traditions, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered—everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to several canonical hadith, Muhammad himself reportedly declared if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Vajda also emphasizes how the notion of jihad war “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology:

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

Lastly, a profound anti-Jewish, and racist motif, put forth in early Muslim Sunni historiography, as well as the Shiite hadith literature, is most assuredly, contra Lewis, a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and, per Sunnis founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. Sunnis held him responsible—identified as a black (i.e., a racist motif, as well!) Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife. Authoritative Shiite authors claimed this identifiably black Jew was guilty of perverting and warping the message of Caliph Ali’s true (Shiite) followers. Mainstream Shiites thus designated Abdullah Ibn Saba an avatar of extreme, heretical beliefs, for which Caliph Ali purportedly had Ibn Saba burned alive, as described in Shiite hadith.

The entirety of this ugly Islamic doctrine—shared, with minimal variation, by Sunni and Shiite Islam alike—begot chronic, grinding oppression, interspersed with paroxysms of violence, including sporadic, mass murderous pogroms, which affected Jewish communities in Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and even mythically tolerant Muslim Spain, to the west, as well as Turkey, to the north, and Iraq and Iran, to the east. Modern Zionism, culminating in the re-establishment of Israel, governed by Jews fully liberated from 13 centuries of jihad-imposed dhimmitude in their ancestral homeland, has re-invigorated Islam’s annihilationist strains of Jew-hatred.

During a Pew Forum interview April 27, 2006 Bernard Lewis opined rather defensively about Islam’s religio-political “law,” the Sharia:

“[W]hen we talk of Muslim law, I would remind you that we are talking about law. Sharia is a system of law and adjudication, not of lynching and terror. It is a law that lays down rules, rules for evidence, for indictment, for defense and the rest of it, quite a different matter from what has been happening recently.”

But Lewis doesn’t elaborate on those “rules,” or any of the elements of Sharia which make it so noxious! I will. Briefly.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

In light of the still raging 2006 Danish cartoons controversy, regarding the “crime” of blaspheming Islam’s prophet, specifically, thus spake Lewis, the Islamic Yoda of our generation, circa April, 2006:

“The jurists on the whole tend to take a rather mild view of this offense.”

Really? Carl Brockelmann (d.1956), the renowned scholar of Semitic languages, and arguably the foremost Orientalist of his generation, made these candid observations in 1939 about the Sharia’s injunctions pertaining to penal law in general, and so-called “blasphemy and apostasy,” specifically—Islamic Law being “valid” eternally, and all too widely applied in Brockelmann’s era, through the present.

“The penal code of Islam has remained on a rather primitive level…Blasphemy with respect to Allah, the Prophet, and his predecessors is punished by death, as is defection from Islam, if the culprit persists in his disbelief.”

Consider the modern views on blasphemy articulated by the late Ayatollah Montazeri (d. Dec 2009), gushingly championed by fervent Lewis acolytes Michael Ledeen and Reuel Gerecht, and deemed the enlightened spiritual godfather of the so-called Iranian Green Movement. The good Ayatollah adhered rigorously to the traditionalist Shiite dogma on “sabb,” or blasphemy, i.e., instant, lethal punishment of the offender, declaring,

“In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular, Muhammad]if the witness does not have fear of his or her life it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

“Rising Restrictions on Religion,” a report by the Pew Research Center issued August 9, 2011, examined the issue of “defamation” of religion, tracking countries where various penalties are enforced for apostasy, blasphemy or criticism of religions. “While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical,” the report noted. The Pew report, consistent with Brockelmann’s assessment from 1939, found that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, 21—Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Western Sahara and Yemen—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed,

Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.

As a predictable consequence of this Sharia-based application of apostasy and blasphemy laws by Islamic governments, the Pew report also documented that,

…the share of national governments that showed hostility toward minority religions involving physical violence was much higher in countries where laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion are actively enforced

Bernard Lewis’s April 2006 apologetic on the Sharia was complemented by the stunning claim he made during a lecture delivered July 16, 2006 about the transferability of Western democracy to despotic Muslim societies, such as Iraq. He concluded with the statement, “Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us,” which was published as, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” and disseminated widely. Yet Lewis never elucidated the yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom—hurriyya in Arabic. This omission was striking given his contribution to the official Encyclopedia of Islam entry on hurriyya. Lewis egregiously omitted not only his earlier writings on hurriyya but what he had also termed the “authoritarian or even totalitarian” essence of Islamic societies.

Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it  “perfect slavery,” and following Islamic law slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya. Bernard Lewis, in his Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. Lewis maintained,

…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government-to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West.

Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism transiently ameliorated this chronic situation:

During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issueThough often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.

And Lewis concludes his entry by observing that Islamic societies forsook even their inchoate democratic experiments,

In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.

Lewis, viewed the immediate post-World War II era of democratic experimentation by Muslim societies as an objective failure , rooted in Islamic totalitarianism, which he compared directly to Communist totalitarianism, in his 1954 essay, “Communism and Islam,” noting their “uncomfortable resemblances” with some apprehension. Lewis characterized the political history of Islam,” as “one of almost unrelieved autocracy.” He added,

“[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind…in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law”

Directly comparing Islam and Communism, Lewis observed:

“Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which-the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.”

Consistent with Bernard Lewis’s admonition, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” the US military, at an enormous cost of blood and treasure, liberated Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic regimes. However, as facilitated by the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions the US military occupation helped midwife—which formally negated freedom of conscience, and promoted the persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities—they,” i.e., the Muslim denizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have chosen to reject the opportunity for Western freedom we provided them, and transmogrified it into “hurriyya.” With sad predictability, Lewis, in an April 2, 2011 Wall Street Journal interview, managed to reject his own 1950s characterizations of Islam as authoritarian, even totalitarian, while burbling his subsequent oft repeated pieties about the putative tolerant, anti-authoritarian “tradition” of Islam, to cast a hopeful light on the Arab Spring:

The whole Islamic tradition is very clearly against autocratic and irresponsible rule.. We have a much better chance of establishing…some sort of open, tolerant society, if it’s done within their systems, according to their traditions.

Finally, in May, 2012, George W. Bush appeared to have learned nothing from the Iraq democratization debacle, and how it repudiated his blind adherence to the “Lewis Doctrine.” Mr. Bush hectored critics who did not share his ebullient cognitive dissonance about the then unfolding so-called Arab Spring phenomenon, declaring

Some look at the risks inherent in democratic change, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know, in the name of stability.

Bush II even made the outrageous claim that the, de facto Springtime for Sharia in Araby was tantamount to “the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet Communism.”

Far more important than mere hypocrisy—a ubiquitous human trait—is the catastrophic legacy of his own Islamic negationism Bernard Lewis has bequeathed to Western policymaking elites.

__________________

Andrew Bostom About / Contact

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info@andrewbostom.org

For any website problems please contact the webmaster at webmaster@ndrewbostom.org

FYI — All yahoo email domains have been banned for spam abuse. Please use your own ISP to send email or get a gmail account. If you don’t your email will not be delivered or forwarded. Thanks, webmaster.

The Continuing Discussion with Brig. Gen. Sharaf of Pakistan


Transfiguration of Christ

John R. Houk

© July 31, 2013

 

Brig. Gen. Samson Simon Sharaf (ret.) of Pakistan has sent a critique of my post ‘A Response to “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”’ via the Google+ comment system. I usually place my thoughts preceding responses to comments; however General Sharaf’s comment is a post length and is well written with ideas I agree with as well as disagree. I’ll do my best to answer the Brigadier General’s well thought out comments below his post.

 

JRH 7/31/13

Please Support NCCR

_____________________

Brig. Gen. Sharaf (ret.) Defends Pakistan Patriotism and USA Criticism

(Title created by Editor)

Comment posted: July 28, 2013

Google+ Comment

 

Dear John,

Please understand that like you, we Pakistanis are also justified to claim our patriotism. . The right to freedom of thought cannot be viewed in black and white and selectively. If American citizens have a right to criticise government policies, so do we. I neither despise USA nor its people. Our opinions manifest fundamental rights and freedom of expression.

 
USA is a great country, the world’s only super power with a rich history. American Civil War was the Zenith of the Renaissance, Industrial Revolution and Nation States. Yet it took USA over a century to come to grips with civil rights epitomised in the tragedies of Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy. Social dynamics in an instant go berserk, but ages to take a correction course.

The America of our dreams that rose out of the civil war and the land of opportunities is not the America we see in recent international policies. Cocooned in its trans-Atlantic isolation, the advantages of globalisation do not manifest themselves in the policy towards conflict zones that lie far away. There are dual standards we protest.

The biggest and most enduring lesson of the Civil War was the decisive nature of the Social Dimension of conflict, again brought to fore in WWI and II. Hence post WWII, the process of rebuilding and restructuring was initiated for Central Europe, Japan and South Korea. The same was not done for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the post-Soviet withdrawal in the late 80s. The forces of religiously inspired militancy that were US allies from 1979 to 1989 were disowned and allowed to rot in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I felt then and in retrospect feel convinced that had USA followed the development model of Japan/Germany thereafter, much of what is happening now could have been moderated and contained.  In fact, the absence to factorise societal factors and psych-social dynamics in policy and war plans has hurt countries adversely: from Gulf of Tonkin that destabilised the entire peninsula to AFPAK that has destabilised the entire region. The SledgeHammer and Daisy Cutter approach to kill a fly can only be paid back by collective hate.

  
USA and its allies could also have played a more assertive role in settling political issues in South Asia and prevented it from becoming a nuclear keg. Rather, Arab militants were allowed to transcend international borders and create a floating threat. OBL was allowed to Sudan and after Kenyan bombings facilitated to enter Afghanistan. Mansur Ijaz, an American opinion maker claims that USA refused to take him over from Sudan and I know through personal knowledge that USA refused to take him [OBL] over through a neutral country once Taliban wanted to hand him over in 2001.

 
In strategic parlance, Pakistan was the pivot from which the act of containing godless communism and Iranian revolution took place. Pakistan’s allies notably USA promoted the policy of using religion for strategic purposes as a result of which no measures were taken to hedge against religious and sectarian divides. The process began in 1949 and continued to become more exclusive with time. It is this effect we see in the religiously motivated violence in our country.

Unlike 1947-1971, Pakistani Christians are seen an extension of western influence.  Acts of intolerance against Christians saw a sharp rise after 1981, when USA began sponsoring religiously inspired violence against Iran, Shia populations and USSR. Apart from blasphemy cases, in 28 incidents of terrorism spanning 10 years, 116 Christians have been killed and 410 severely impaired. 7 churches or properties have been destroyed.  Human rights organisations and many Christian NGOs watching Pakistan through a periscope ignore the linkages of this violence to global politics. The socio-economic indices of Christians have plummeted and majority resigned to life in slums and ghettos. This is what I am fighting against as a Pakistani Christian activist.

During a lecture at Vatican, I said that we do not need reinforcement of Faith. In all adversities, we stick to our religion. Please convince the world to follow constructive policies that will help us prosper in other things as we do in Faith (3rd Letter of St. Paul, 1:2). As a religious right and a strong lobby, it is also your responsibility to instil the fear of God in your policy makers, whose Shock and Awe rains hell for Pakistanis and Afghans.

 
God Bless


_______________________

John R. Houk Response

July 30, 2013

 

General Sharaf is absolutely correct that he has as much right to criticize foreign and domestic governments as much as I do. Well anyway, from an American perspective. I doubt that General Sharaf would criticize the Pakistan government action that potentially would criminalize a group of Pakistani Christians for having an outdoor Easter Sunrise Service. General Sharaf is a Roman Catholic thus if he chose such criticism I suspect he would run afoul of Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws. It would be blasphemous for a Muslim to accept an open Christian Service proclaiming the Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Christ’s Resurrection and Sonship are a direct contradiction of the Islamic Quran. Hence the probable accusation of breaking a Blasphemy Law.

 

That was the point I was attempting to drive home in the post that got this discussion rolling – “Samson Simon Sharaf and Pakistani Christian Patriotism”. It is a mystery to me that Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that validates Islamic Sharia Law that results in persecution for the simple practice of Religious Freedom (e.g. proclaiming Jesus is the only way to God and all other paths – including Mohammed’s – are false paths). In America it is annoying to Biblical Christians when Muslims preach that Mohammed is the last Prophet and his revelation from Allah is truth while the People of the Book are deceived following a corrupted Scriptures. Annoyance does not lead to societal riots in which Mosques are burnt to the ground and Muslims homes and stores are destroyed and women are violated. That is something that does occur in Pakistan aimed at Christians when Americans speak what they believe is the truth about Islam. Muslims go beyond being annoyed to something said in a nation foreign to them leading toward taking out their vitriol on Pakistani Christians. AND still Pakistani Christians are patriotic to a government that does little prevention and only sometimes prosecutes only a few Muslims when hundreds may have been involved in violence and desecration of Churches. I have to be honest, Pakistan Christian loyalty and Patriotism mystifies me.

 

General Sharaf you say America is great nation then write a paragraph of America’s Civil Rights struggles in the past that are better now than any time in our history as if that greatness has now evaporated. I do agree America’s shining star on the hill status has diminished but Civil Rights have not been the cause of that dimming light. The American struggle to rekindle the fire to the light has more to do with the unfortunate success of Left Wing politics diminishing America’s moral fabric by separating all things Christian from influencing the nation on a Federal, State and Local level.

 

Prayer has been removed from our Public Schools, Christian symbolism in Public buildings are being extracted by legal means, lax abortion laws has enabled the murder of millions of unborn children and America’s Left has successfully forced American society to accept homosexuality and transgenderism as a part of the society’s normal fabric. There are a plethora of moral issues that I haven’t mentioned that the Left is using as a legal war on Christianity in an attempt to slowly expunge our faith and Biblical Morality.

 

America’s Founding Fathers believed in a Church-State separation; however that separation was not a two-way street like the American Left has been revising for the last 50 years or so. America’s First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Religious Freedom and ensures that the government will not establish a State-managed Church. There is no mention whatsoever in the U.S. Constitution of preventing Christianity (literally any ‘religion’ in the wording, but the intent was referencing Christianity) from influencing the morals of American society on a Private or Public level.

 

The result of this moral encroachment by America’s Left has seen a skyrocketing of crime on an urban and rural level. Children that were once predominantly innocent angels have multiplied into disrespectful violent criminals. Most of America’s rural areas (which was my upbringing) had so much neighborly and community trust that people did not lock their doors in their homes or their automobiles. Those days are gone in the 21st Century. Actually those days left before the 21st Century arrived.

 

Chuckle. Now look what you did General. You got me contemplating the things that I do find disturbing about America’s current state of society.

 

Addressing America’s international policies there is an essence of truth to what you have observed. America’s Foreign Policy had a central paradigm that was established by our first President George Washington. Do not meddle in European affairs. Americans distrusted Europeans shortly after the American Revolution. Even after the establishment of our honored Constitution that has been the benchmark of American governance, America’s military strength was purposefully kept small because Americans do not trust the power of government which controlled the military. Even after America’s Civil War military personnel was reduced monumentally to limit government interference with American citizens. Only after a war began was there a military mobilization. This included America’s involvement in WWI. After WWI was over the military was reduced. The political reasoning for military reduction was because of the belief of the difficulty for foreign powers (with the focus on Europe) to cross the Atlantic and/or Pacific Oceans to make a sustained attack on American soil. The policy was called Isolationism.

 

Japan’s bombing of the Navy Base at Pearl Harbor Hawaii changed America’s military strategy forever. America had to play catch-up in mobilizing the army and navy to confront Japanese aggression in the Pacific and join the British in fighting Japan’s European ally Nazi Germany in the Atlantic-European theatre.

 

After WWII America was the big winner. All of Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to Moscow Russia suffered the devastation of truly horrible carnage and destruction. Japan’s industrial complex had been destroyed as well.

 

There was only one nation that did not experience destruction on their home soil during WWII. Of course that was the USA. Part of the reason for this again were the two oceans of the Pacific and the Atlantic; however it was obvious from WWII that ocean protection was quickly coming to an end. Soon after WWII the old Soviet Union set out to turn lands their Red Army had captured into a Communist Empire by imposing Satellite status of European nations the USSR did not directly absorb into their Marxist union.

 

If the USA had returned to past demilitarization as in all previous wars Europe and Japan would have to depend on their own diminished resources to rebuild their Industrial Complex AND they would become an obvious target of Stalin’s Communist expansionism that was quickly forming an Iron Curtain.

 

Seeing the change in the wind of geopolitics and National Security it became a wise choice to use America’s abundant resources to aid Europe and Japan to rebuild their Industrial Complex. Thus it was also inevitable that America would protect their investment from Soviet aggression by protecting it. To protect the USA had to expand their Military Complex for its first time in history.

 

Nuclear energy and hi-tech science turned America into the most formidable military the world has ever seen to the chagrin of the Soviet expansionist agenda. The USSR was constantly playing technical catch-up with our Military and Scientific Complex but were always a step behind. Marxist principles simply could not develop innovation with their resources in the same way as America’s Free Market Capitalism did. Even Russia’s nuclear program and armament was the result of espionage rather than personal development.

 

Have there been Foreign Policy mistakes and bad decisions by the American government? We all know the answer is yes. Nonetheless, America’s National Interests are more important to us than that of an unstable or destabilized nation that has the capacity to initiate WWIII conventionally or with a nuke war strategy.

 

General you stated the Muslim world (well specifically you use the global stretch example of the AFPAK area through the Vietnamese Gulf of Tonkin) could have benefitted from the post-WWII rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan. This a point I believe is categorically incorrect. In the case of the Muslim dominated world, it is not willing to allow the kind of American encroachment that would have been needed to create industrialism and an uncorrupted government Civil Service ex nihilo. Europe and Japan had a long history of a growing industrialism and a Civil Service to make the apparatus of government to function efficiently. Islamic Supremacism and Tribalism among Muslim nations makes such an American investment nearly impossible.

 

I didn’t use to believe that. I too felt the Westernized traditions of the Europe and Japan (yes Japan learned Western ways to make their nation military world power in the 1930s) paradigm would also benefit the Muslim world. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that nation-building political infrastructure that would infuse stable institutions of governance and economy cannot happen between America and Third World Muslim nations. America was able to do this with nations that already had a foundation to rebuild upon.

 

Ironically the Iranian model will probably work best among Muslim nations; however that government is so full of loathing of everything non-Muslim that American National Interests compels the USA to marginalize Iranian development. General you have to realize Pakistan has the capacity to become a model for the Muslim world, but again Islamic Supremacism compels the USA to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs. After all Pakistan has nukes. Perhaps saner people are managing Pakistan’s military than those managing the Iranian military; nonetheless from an American National Interest standpoint the Radical Islam that appears to becoming more and more pervasive makes the USA to overtly or covertly meddle to maintain some kind of balance of weakness rather than a balance of strength. The issue of finding Osama bin Laden holed up in Pakistan for years certainly adds to that distrust.

 

You don’t seriously think America was going to fix Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin reference) after developing a Marxist paradigm for their economy and industry? Even today Vietnam maintains a Maoist-Stalinist repressive regime in which Civil Rights are non-existent unless you accept the Communist paradigm. Just briefly on Southeast Asia: South Korea and Taiwan join Japan in creating an Economic-Industrial Complex with American help.

 

I checked out the source you mentioned concerning Mansur (or Mansoor) Ijaz. There appears to be a bit of controversy on Mr. Ijaz’s reliability. The Memogate scandal he caused in Pakistan (and less publicized in the USA) in which Ijaz accuses Pakistan’s President Zardari and the Pakistani Ambassador at the time to the USA to be in collusion with America in allowing soldiers to fly into Pakistan and attack bin Laden’s Abbottabad paramilitary complex which resulted in OBL’s death. If true, in my opinion that is a plus for Pakistan’s President. Any Pakistan negative public reaction frankly shows why Pakistan should be a concern to American National Interests. As the USA departs from Afghanistan militarily the Afghanis deserve what happens to them if their good citizens allow the Taliban to rule again. After an Afghan departure the USA has less reason to meddle in Pakistan internal affairs except perhaps as to who controls Pakistan’s nuke arsenal. And also I have to be frank: the killing of Osama bin Laden makes it easier for American citizens of a Conservative nature to stomach leaving Afghanistan even with the failure of Presidents Bush and Obama to use a win at all costs strategy as was last practiced during WWII. The win at all costs strategy probably would have ended America’s interest in fighting in Afghanistan sooner; however as in WWII civilian collateral damage in both Afghanistan and Pakistan would have been much steeper. Musharraf’s game of getting US military aid in exchange for Pakistan cooperation in creating an anti-Taliban front was a travesty of a faithful alliance with Pakistan.

 

Apparently Mansur Ijaz is the global source of how America could have captured Osama bin Laden two times before the 9/11 Islamic Terrorist attack that led America into a Middle East war. The reasoning is no OBL means no 9/11 attack. No 9/11 attack suggests no American Global War on Terror (GWOT). The reality is 9/11 caused an American military mobilization like Pearl Harbor caused a mobilization to participate in WWII. You see WWII had been going on in Europe since 1939 and in Asia between Japan since before the Day of Infamy on December 7, 1941 in the early 1930s. Islamic Terrorists had been attacking Israel-Jews since before its inception in 1948 and American interests since at least from the late 70s and early 80s. It took around 3000 deaths on American soil to wake up American sensibilities that Islamic Terrorists are more than just a nuisance, but rather a threat to the American way of life at home and abroad. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar simply gave the USA something tangible to extend American wrath for the senseless killing of Americans just because they are Americans. Frankly I and a lot of Americans would not be bothered using our resources to strike down Islamic Terrorists wherever they are hiding no matter the sovereign nation. Whether it takes the reach of SEAL Team 6 or Drones, Islamic Terrorists need to feel the pain they inflict on others. If Islamic Terrorists are dumb enough to hide among accepting non-combatants then so be it.

 

I apologize General I know it sounds harsh. Honestly though I’ve grown weary of Islam’s contribution to messing up the trust between individuals that I experienced in my childhood and youth.

 

Okay, back to Ijaz.

 

Ijaz claims the USA could have collected bin Laden from Sudan with the full consent of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Google exploration appears to validate Ijaz (See Also HERE) however the 9/11 Commission and Clinton Administration disagreed with Ijaz’s contention. Exposing Clinton to potential Foreign Policy screw-ups made Mansoor Ijaz a media darling among American Conservatives. However, more and more evidence seems to be pointing toward Ijaz as a narcissistic showboater in the case of Memogate.

 

Journalist David Frum believes Mansoor Ijaz is a faker because he lied about Frum under oath in a Pakistan investigation:

 

I finally concluded that Ijaz’s version of events was almost certainly bogus, and I raised the possibility that “Pakistani democracy has been corroded, and the U.S. and Pakistan have been pushed toward a dangerous confrontation, by a reckless fantasist motivated by childish vanity.”

 

In commission proceedings on March 15, Ijaz was asked about my column. He answered as follows:

 

Q: Do you know Mr. David Frum, who is also a contributor to CNN?
 
A: I don’t know Mr. David Frum personally, but I know about him. He has extensively written against me with regard to this matter.
 
Q: Do you have an article contributed on December 8, 2011, by Mr. David Frum?
 
A: I don’t have it.
 
Q: How did Mr. David Frum describe you in the said article?
 
A: I don’t recall, but it was in negative terms. [Volunteers] In view of the fact Mr. Frum defamed me my lawyers in Washington informed him that if he does not retract, I will be taking legal action against him.

 

(You can read the transcript here. This exchange is on page 43.)

 

Let me state flatly for the record: that quoted statement of Mansoor Ijaz is false. I have not been threatened with legal action by any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz. I have not had any communication of any kind from any lawyer representing Mansoor Ijaz.

 

Mansoor Ijaz did ask CNN.com to post a response from him, not only to my column, but also to a column by my CNN colleague Peter Bergen detailing the long, sorry history of false claims by Ijaz. That response can be read here:

 

David Frum can call me all the names he wants — it won’t change the facts. It certainly will not deter me. And it won’t help to fix what ails Pakistan.

 

Peter Bergen can ridicule my three or four claims that turned out to be inaccurate over a five year period of being interviewed nearly four or five times a week — it won’t change the facts, or the accuracy with which I recorded them in this instance.

 

That’s a bold new defense: ‘My claims turned out to be false only three or four times!’

 

Now there is a fifth time (at least) when an Ijaz statement has been revealed as false.
 
May it please the court, I think we have a regular pattern of behavior here. (
READ ENTIRITY Did The Notorious Mansoor Ijaz Lie About Me Under Oath? By David Frum; The Daily Beast; Mar 21, 2012 10:58 AM EDT)

 

General Sharaf, using Mansoor Ijaz as a source seems unreliable; nonetheless giving him the benefit of the doubt the U.S. government did not have a sense of a homeland security problem with Islamic Terrorism. It was still viewed as a legal Court issue rather than a military matter. Not until 9/11 occurred that National Security strategists began to view Islamic Terrorism as a homeland National Security matter. Of all the problems blamed on President Bush including some misjudged Foreign Policy decisions, he is a hero to me. President GW Bush made the decision to face Islamic Terrorism as a military threat that the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans could not throw up a wall big enough to keep the barbarians out. America’s war with the Taliban for protecting Osama bin Laden was the disturbing fault of the Taliban leadership of which Mullah Omar was the Chief leader among many.

 

So if Omar Mullah desired to give up Osama bin Laden in cooperation with the USA before 9/11, why not after 9/11 when bin Laden was considered a military war criminal?

 

General Sharaf you point out Pakistani Christians became persecution targets of American meddling in religious affairs of Iran. You do remember what the Shi’ite Mullocracy did to the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 right? An Embassy by international protocol is the national soil of the nation that occupies that Embassy. The protocol for diplomatic extinction is to order the national diplomatic personnel to leave the host nation. The protocol is not to attack an Embassy and hold the personnel hostage for nearly ONE YEAR screaming espionage where diplomatic immunity applies. If one thinks the USA will not inflict mayhem at least covertly for such ignorance of the sanctity of diplomatic immunity is sadly mistaken. I suspect the only reason President Carter did not respond as if this was an act of war was because he is Democratic Party Liberal like America’s current President Obama. Most American Liberals live under the delusion that ALL acts of aggression can be solved with a carrot more than with a stick. Radical Muslims do not respond well with carrots from the kafir. Carrots are viewed as weakness. It is only the stick that elicits a negotiation point with the ideology of Radical Islam. Iran is an enemy of the USA. Carter screwed up the opportunity to put Iran in its place. Instead Carter made Iran look like it was negotiating from a point of strength and enabled the Iranian Mullocracy to have an agenda of building a Military Complex that is not only threatening to American National Security but also to initiating yet another global conflict by forcing nations to choose sides if such a conflict breaks out.

 

The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Canonical)

 

13 1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (13: 1-7 NKJV)

 

I get why Pakistani Christians should submit to the governing authorities imposing Islamic Supremacism over the Religious Freedom of Christians. After all the authorities appointed are from God regardless of Christian, Islamic, other religion or atheist. However when rulers fail to do good or be a minister of good, that ruler is outside the mandated appointment. When that ruler or rulers support evil over good God raises up another instrument to do the will of God knowingly or unknowingly (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar).

 

18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.

 

22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers[a] of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.

 

25 “And this is the inscription that was written:

 

MENE,[b] MENE, TEKEL,[c] UPHARSIN.[d]

 

26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.”[e] (Daniel 5: 18-28 NKJV)

 

I am biased nonetheless I believe America has been an instrument of good globally since WWII. I also believe standing as an instrument of good could be endangered because of the American Left purging of America’s Christian foundations that helped bring about good government when a council of diverse people agreed upon a national experiment that has been the U.S. Constitution. All the geopolitical meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations under the policies of American National Interests and National Security might allow another instrument to spank the USA a few times to get the people to wake up. A paradigm God used with the Hebrew Tribes until the disregard of faith in God led to Assyria deporting the Northern Tribes of Israel and 100 years later Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar deported Judah and Benjamin. The largest of the remaining 12 Tribes was Judah and thus the Hebrew descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became labeled as Jews. After punishment Jews by prophecy returned to their homeland about 70 years later ironically by the direction of the King of Persia which is present day Iran.

 

My point is God chooses whomever whether of faith or not to accomplish His purpose on the Earth. The New Testament warns that the Antichrist will fool people that he represents God. The Antichrists actions ultimately reveal who he belongs to whether as an individual or as an Antichrist spirit corrupting people and nations. I still believe the USA is God’s global instrument; however the further America descends away from Christianity the more likely that instrumentation will come to an end.

 

JRH 7/31/13

Please Support NCCR

Intro: Obama’s Dangerous Consistency


BHO Quran apology - BHO Constitution Disdain

John R. Houk

© September 22, 2012

 

Caroline Glick has some awesome insight on Obama’s Foreign Policy in relation to Egyptian animus toward the USA.

 

She begins by pointing out the Islamic hatred for American Free Speech. This Egyptian hatred of America is evidenced by Egypt placing arrest warrants against the makers of the Mohammed Movie and anyone associated with promoting the movie.

 

Just as a sidebar: Egypt asking the U.S. government to honor the arrest warrants for something that is protected by the First Amendment should give more importance to the grassroots movement of enacting American Laws for American Courts (ALAC). – End of sidebar

 

Glick points out that Egyptian Clerics – like from the Muslim Brotherhood – are calling for an end of attacks on U.S. Embassies; however call for Muslims to rise up in the USA to murder anyone connected to the Mohammed Movie.

 

Glick points out that the Obama Administration has been consistent in an appeasement foreign policy by using an apologetic strategy of courting friendship with Muslim nations and most notoriously the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

 

Glick rounds out her criticism of President Barack Hussein Obama by pointing out his Administration is attempting to take the voters’ eyes off the foreign policy failure by dredging memories of the Neocons of the old Bush Administration yet only and oddly falling into the myth that Neocons are Jewish. Hence, without using anti-Semitic words the Obama Administration is using antisemitism to separate Obama policies as the source of Muslim rage against Americans.

 

This is a good read!

 

JRH 9/22/12

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Obama’s dangerous consistency

 

By Caroline Glick

September 21, 2012, 9:39 AM

CarolineGlick.com

 

On Tuesday, Egypt’s chief prosecutor issued arrest warrants against eight US citizens.

 

Their purported crimes relate either to their reported involvement in the production of the Internet movie critical of Islam that has received so much attention over the past 10 days, or to other alleged anti-Islamic activities.

 

One of the US citizens indicted is a woman who converted from Islam to Christianity.

 

According to the Associated Press, Egypt’s general prosecution issued a statement announcing that the eight US citizens have been indicted on charges of insulting and publicly attacking Islam, spreading false information, and harming Egyptian national unity.

 

The statement stipulated that they could face the death penalty if convicted.

 

The AP write-up of the story quoted Mamdouh Ismail, a Salafi attorney who praised the prosecution’s move. He claimed it would deter others from exercising their right to free expression in regards to Islam. As he put it, the prosecutions will “set a deterrent for them and anyone else who may fall into this.” That is, they will deter others from saying anything critical about Islam.

 

This desire to intimidate free people into silence on Islam is clearly the goal the heads of the Muslim Brotherhood seek to achieve through their protests of the anti-Islamic movie. This was the message of Muslim Brotherhood chief Yussuf Qaradawi. Three days after the anti-American assaults began on the anniversary of the September 11 jihadist attacks on America, Qaradawi gave a sermon on Qatar television, translated by MEMRI.

 

Qaradawi struck a moderate tone. He called on his followers to stop rioting against the US. Rather than attack the US, Qaradawi urged his Muslim audience to insist that the US place prohibitions on the free speech rights of American citizens by outlawing criticism of Islam – just as the Europeans have done in recent years in the face of Islamic terror and intimidation.

 

In his words, “We say to the US: You must take a strong stance and try to confront this extremism like the Europeans do. This [anti-Islamic film] is not art. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is nothing but curses and insults. Does the freedom to curse and insult constitute freedom of speech?”

 

Both the actions of the Egyptian prosecution and Qaradawi’s sermon prove incontrovertibly that the two policies the US has adopted since September 11, 2001, to contend with Muslim hatred for the US have failed. The neoconservative policy of supporting the democratization of Muslim societies adopted by President Barack Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush has failed. And the appeasement policy adopted by Obama has also failed.

 

Bush’s democratization policy claimed that the reason the Muslim world had become a hotbed for anti-Americanism and terror was that the Muslim world was not governed by democratic regimes. Once the peoples of the Muslim world were allowed to be free, and to freely elect their governments, the neoconservatives proclaimed, they would abandon their hatred of America.

 

As a consequence of this belief, when the anti-regime protests against the authoritarian Mubarak regime began in January 2011, the neoconservatives were outspoken supporters of the overthrow of then-president Hosni Mubarak, despite the fact that he had been the US’s key ally in the Arab world for three decades. They supported the political process that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. They supported the process despite the fact that Qaradawi is the most influential cleric in Egypt. They supported it despite the fact that just days after Mubarak was ousted from power, Qaradawi arrived at Cairo’s Tahrir Square and before an audience of two million followers, he called for the invasion of Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem.

 

In the event, the Egyptian people voted for Qaradawi’s Muslim Brotherhood and for the Salafi party. The distinction between the two parties is that Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood are willing to resort to both violent and nonviolent ways to dominate the world in the name of Islam. The Salafis abjure nonviolence. So while Qaradawi called for the riots to end in order to convince the Americans to criminalize criticism of Islam, his Salafi counterparts called for the murder of everyone involved in producing the anti-Islamic film.

 

For instance, Salafi cleric Ahmad Fouad Ashoush issued a fatwa on Islamic websites last weekend calling for American and European Muslims to murder those involved with the movie. His religious ruling was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group on Monday.

 

Ashoush wrote, “Those bastards who did this film are belligerent disbelievers. I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film.

 

“So, hurry, hurry, O Muslim youth in America and Europe, and teach those filthy lowly ones a lesson that all the monkeys and pigs in America and Europe will understand. May Allah guide you and grant you success.”

 

These are the voices of democratic Egypt. The government, which has indicted American citizens on capital charges for exercising their most fundamental right as Americans, is a loyal representative of the sentiments of the Egyptian people who freely elected it. The Salafi preacher is a loyal representative of the segment of the Egyptian people that made the Salafi party the second largest in the Egyptian parliament. Qaradawi’s call for the abolition of freedom of speech in America – as has happened in Europe – and to ban all criticism of Islam is subscribed to by millions and millions of Muslims worldwide who consider him one of the leading Sunni clerics in the world.

 

Free elections in Egypt have empowered the Egyptian people to use the organs of governance to advance their hatred of America. Their hatred has been empowered, and legitimized, not diminished as the neoconservatives had hoped.

 

The behavior of the Egyptian government, Qaradawi and the Salafis also makes clear that Obama’s policy of appeasing the Muslim world has failed completely. Whereas Bush believed the source of Muslim hatred was their political oppression at the hands of their regimes, Obama has blamed their rage and hatred on America’s supposed misdeeds.

 

By changing the way America treats the Muslim world, Obama believes he can end their hatred of America. To this end, he has reached out to the most anti-American forces and regimes in the region and spurned pro-American regimes and political forces.

 

When Obama’s policies are recognized as driven by appeasement, the seeming inconsistency of his war against Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi on the one hand, and his passivity in the face of the anti-regime uprising in Iran in 2009 and the Syrian uprising against the Assad regime today makes sense. Gaddafi was not a threat to the US, so he was unworthy of protection. The mullahs in Iran and Assad are foes of the US. So they deserve protection. Obama has assiduously courted the Muslim Brotherhood from the outset of his presidency.

 

The official and unofficial Egyptian exploitation of the Internet film as a means to intimidate and attack the US into disavowing its core principles is proof that Obama’s theory of the source of Muslim rage is wrong. They do not hate America because of what the US government does. They hate America because of what America is. And it is because of this that since September 11, the rationale for Obama’s foreign policy has disintegrated.

 

Rather than accept this basic truth and defend the American way of life, Obama has doubled down in the only way now available to him. He, his administration, his campaign and his supporters in the media have responded to the collapse of the foundations of his foreign policy by resorting to the sort of actions they accused George W. Bush, his administration and supporters of taking. They have responded with a campaign of political oppression and nativist bigotry directed against their political opponents.

 

Late last Friday night, law enforcement officers descended on the California home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man who made the film that the Muslims of the newly free Arab lands find so offensive. Nakoula was questioned by federal authorities and later released. His arrest was photographed. The image of a dozen officers arresting an unarmed man for making a movie was broadcast worldwide within moments.

 

Beyond persecuting an independent filmmaker, the White House requested that YouTube block access to it. YouTube – owned by Google – has so far rejected the White House’s request.

 

The Obama administration’s abetment of bigoted nativism to silence criticism of its substantively indefensible foreign policy was on prominent display last Sunday. Obama’s campaign endorsed an anti-Semitic screed published by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

 

In her column, titled, “Neocons slither back,” Dowd wrote that Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are mere puppets controlled by “neocon puppet master, Dan Senor.”

 

Neocon is a popular code for Jewish. It was so identified by Dowd’s Times’ colleague David Brooks several years ago.

 

Dowd said that “the neocons captured” Bush after the September 11 attacks and “Now, amid contagious Arab rage sparked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, they have captured another would-be Republican president and vice president, both jejeune about the world.”

 

One telling aspect of Dowd’s assault on Senor as a neoconservative is that he and his boss in the Bush administration, Paul Bremer, were the nemeses of the neoconservatives at the Pentagon. The only thing Senor has in common with the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith is that all three men are Jews.

 

Moreover, Dowd drew a distinction between supposed “neocons” like Senor, and non-Jewish US leaders Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who merely “abetted” the neocons.

 

So Senor doesn’t share the same ideological worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz but he’s a neocon. And Cheney and Rumsfeld do share the same worldview as Feith and Wolfowitz. And they are not neocons.

 

The Times’ public editor Andrew Rosenthal dismissed claims that Dowd’s column was anti- Semitic, arguing it couldn’t be since she never said a word about Jews.

 

The Obama campaign linked to Dowd’s column on its Twitter account with the message, “Why Romney and Ryan’s foreign policy sounds ‘ominously familiar.'” Obama’s campaign’s willingness to direct the public to anti-Semitic screeds against his political opponents is consistent with the administration’s general strategy for defending policies. That strategy involves responding to criticism not with substantive defense of his policies, but with ad hominem attacks against his critics.

 

His failed economic policies’ critics are attacked as “Wall Street fat cats.” His failed foreign policies’ critics are demonized as ominous neocon puppet masters.

 

There is a difference between appeasing parties that have been harmed by your actions and appeasing parties that wish your destruction. In the 1970s the US appeased the Philippines by transferring sovereignty over the Clark Air Force Base to the Philippine government. America was still America and the US and the Philippines became friends.

 

To appease a party that hates your way of life, you must change your way of life. The only way America can appease the Muslim world is for America to cease to be America.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

_________________________

© 2012 Caroline Glick

 

About Caroline Glick