The Appalling Elevation (continued)
Unfortunately it will require a second post to plumb the depths of President Obama’s appalling betrayal. In the previous post I focused on the message sent to and heard by the people under threat from Political Islam. In this post I’ll focus on this message’s content from the point of view of Political Islam.
For the reader’s convenience, this is what he said (emphasis added).
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
When Christians think about “slander” against their religion what typically comes to mind are intentional, extreme provocations such as “piss Christ” and “dung Madonna.” However, the criticisms and contemptuous comments regularly made in the normal flow of social discourse about Christianity certainly don’t rise to the level of “slander.” That is, in the general Christian understanding, there is a wide-ranging scope for legitimate debate.
However, when adherents of Political Islam hear the word “slander,” a much broader definition and severer application applies. This issue was well covered in a 2008 post in the American Thinker, from which I provide the following excerpts.
Thus writing in the early 1990s, the esteemed Pakistani scholar Muhammad Asrar, whose opinion was accepted by Pakistan’s Shari’a Court, defined “blasphemy”, focusing on the Muslim prophet, as:
Reviling or insulting the Prophet (pbuh) in writing or speech; speaking profanely or contemptuously about him or his family; attacking the Prophet’s dignity and honor in an abusive manner; vilifying him or making an ugly face when his named is mentioned; showing enmity or hatred towards him, his family, his companions, and the Muslims; accusing, or slandering the Prophet and his family, including spreading evil reports about him or his family; defaming the Prophet; refusing the Prophet’s jurisdiction or judgment in any manner; rejecting the Sunnah; showing disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet.…And in accord with classical Islamic jurisprudence (for example, The Risala of al-Qayrawani [d. 996]), Madani argues that anyone who defames Muhammad — Muslim or non-Muslim — must be put to death.…Intrepid historian David Littman has been chronicling, nearly alone, for almost two decades, the concerted efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to Islamize international human rights instruments, and apply the Shari’a “standard” for blasphemy — pace the current Kambakhsh and Halabjee travesties — to all nations. Littman warned, for example, about the development of the Shari’a-based 1990 Cairo Declaration (i.e., the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam), to which all member states of the OIC are signatories, publicizing the immediate objections of a brave Senegalese jurist, Adama Dieng. Dieng, a Muslim, who subsequently became a United Nations special rapporteur, then serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists, declared forthrightly in February 1992 that the Cairo Declaration, under the rubric of the Shari’a,
…gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms..; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.
So, when President Obama speaks of “slander” to the adherents of Political Islam what they hear is submission by the President of the United States to their totalitarian interpretation of the word. In particular, since it is “blasphemy” to (see more above):
- refuse the Prophet’s jurisdiction or judgment in any manner
- reject the Sunnah (i.e., the record of the prophet Muhammad’s teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals)
- show disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet
how can a non-Muslim possibly live without slandering, let alone blaspheming against Allah and His Prophet? And, those who purposely mock Allah and/or His Prophet clearly should be put to death.
Yes, I understand that a huge number of practicing Muslims do not adhere to the above ideology. I give thanks to God for their kindness, peacefulness and wisdom. But the fact remains that there is a significant portion of Islam, which I here call “Political Islam,” that believes these things and actively seeks their imposition by many means, including extreme acts of violence.
But you need not take my word for it. Here is how Raheel Raza of the Clarion Project describes the Islamic extremism that I am here calling Political Islam.
Islamic extremism is driven by an interpretation of Islam that believes that Islamic law, or sharia, is an all-encompassing religious-political system. Since it is believed to be proscribed by Allah (Arabic for “God”) sharia must be enforced in the public sphere by a global Islamic state. As such, Islamic extremists consider it to be the only truly legitimate form of governance and reject democracy and human rights values.
Why, you may well ask, would our President have made such a disgraceful statement to the United Nations? Are he and his advisors utterly ignorant of Political Islam’s ideology? Are they trying to appease the violent irrationality of Political Islam? Are they purposefully signaling their submission to Political Islam’s project? Who besides the President himself can possibly know?
However, the practical consequence is definitely knowable — the encouragement of Political Islam’s project to obtain submission of Western Civilization to their theocratic totalitarian ideology by any and all means. Thus, regardless of if President Obama’s statement was “well intentioned” or “ill intentioned,” the practical consequences are demoralization and destruction of the flesh and blood human beings who are fortunate enough to live within Western Civilization’s confines.