Posted on 09/12/2014 8:36:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state." -- President Barack Obama in his address to the nation on Wednesday.
About the second point reasonable people can quibble. The terrorist army that calls itself the Islamic State is certainly trying to build a state -- and not just a state, but a super state or caliphate. They're not there yet; their delivery of social services seems spotty at best, though they do collect taxes and uphold the law (in a fashion).
More relevant, it doesn't really matter if it's a state. Morally, this weed stinks just as much whether you call it a state or a soccer league that rapes, tortures and murders people on the side. And legally, statehood would only matter -- and not very much -- if the U.N. and other bodies agreed to recognize the fledgling caliphate's legitimacy. That's not going to happen even if the Islamic State opens up post offices and DMVs on every corner.
The president's first assertion is trickier. Is the Islamic State "not Islamic"? Moreover, is it really "clear" that it's not Islamic?
Not even a little? Is it Islamic-ish?
If we're talking clarity, I'd say the Islamic State is clearly not Mormon. Or Lutheran. Or Buddhist. It most certainly is not the most extreme example of Quakers gone bad ever recorded.
As for it not being Islamic, that's at best unclear, if not just clearly wrong. And the fact that the majority of its victims are Muslim is irrelevant. Lenin and Stalin killed thousands of communists and socialists; that doesn't mean Lenin and Stalin weren't communists and socialists. If such terrorists who kill Muslims aren't Muslims, why do we give them Korans when we imprison them?
The president faces the same dilemma that bedeviled George W. Bush, and I sympathize with him. It is not in our interest for the Muslim world to think we are at war with Islam, not just because it is untrue, but more specifically because we desperately need the cooperation of Muslim nations. That's why Bush constantly proclaimed "Islam means peace."
But it also seems flatly wrong for an American president to be declaring what is or is not Islamic -- or Christian or Jewish. Given the First Amendment alone, there's something un-American in any government official simply declaring what is or is not a religion. Bush's formulation in his September 20, 2001, address to Congress was better: "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam."
Regardless, I'm not the kind of purist who would object to Obama's version -- if it worked. Aeschylus first noted more than 2,400 years ago that the first casualty of war is the truth. And if saying that the Islamic State is guilty of religious false advertising makes it easier to win a war, that's fine by me.
But does it work?
Bush's assurances that "Islam means peace" had little to no discernible effect. It's unlikely that Obama's non-Islamic classification will do any better.
Anyone who thinks jihadism is authentically Muslin won't change his mind because Obama (or Bush before him) says so.
In fact, maybe it's a mistake to concede the point up front? Instead of Americans trying to persuade Muslims of the world that terrorism is un-Islamic, why shouldn't Muslims be working harder to convince us?
Think about it. Whenever a tiny minority of bad actors hurts the reputation of its ethnicity, faith or cause by doing terrible things in the name of its ethnicity, faith or cause, the responsible thing is for the moderate, decent majority to cry "not in our name!" or "they don't speak for us!"
That is what morally decent Jews, Christians, atheists, whites, blacks, Italians, Irish, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, environmentalists and pretty much every other classification of people I can think of do whenever their cause is hijacked or their identity besmirched. Silence may not automatically imply consent, but it does invite suspicion of consent.
To be sure, there are Muslims who have had precisely this reaction as well. But can anyone deny that the world would be a better place if more Muslims felt -- and demonstrated -- that terrorists were giving them a bad name?
A more relevant question:
Is Barack Obama a liar?
Does a bear ***t in the woods?
Imam Obama has deemed it so
The Islamic State is clearly and unambiguously not anti non-syncretic un-Islamic like. Or something.
Now Forward!
Oh yes, Obama is such an accomplished theologian~NOT...
Obama said....”ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.”
This an astoundingly naive statement. The President is absolutely wrong... The Islamic State is Islamic. They are all Mulsims.... They see themselves as Islamic and are recruiting Muslims.
I'd say that the propagation of this lie had a 'discernible effect'. Blinding oneself to an obvious danger is not healthy. You tend to experience more 'workplace accidents' than you would have had you been sensibly alerted to the danger.
Also, you'd tend not to import venomous snakes into your living room.
Clown Prince no0bama is a chronic liar. Liars lie...that is what they do. Clown Prince nobama is a psychopathic liar.
ISIS is doing exactly what their Prophet did himself, they are following exactly in his footsteps.
The main conflict within Islam seems to be between those who want a pure 7th century version and those who think imposing a 14th century version would be more appropriate.
What about the 3000 innocent people killed on 9/11/2001?
Whoever has the revenue, the oil and the armies will win this battle.
To fight you must have an army...to have an army you must have fuel...to have either you must have revenue.
The hunt for moderate Muslims ends only in your head...that is the only place they exist!
The rules and the program for “converting” the entire world to Islam were laid out with the words of the Prophet (P*ss be on his name!).
When a Muslim confronts a non-Muslim, after the outcome of the battle in which the Muslim is victorious, the vanquished individual enemy is given the question - Do you submit to the supremacy of Allah above all other deities? There are three possible outcomes. First, the person to whom the question is put, may become Muslim himself, swearing allegiance to Allah and upholding the noble standards of the Prophet; second, the individual may keep the religion he now practices, so long as acknowledgement is made that Allah is the supreme deity, and the deity or deities to whom the individual prays is subordinate to Allah, after which the individual is part of the Dhimmi, essentially a slave to the Islamic power structure, and may be subject to jizya, a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state’s non-Muslim subjects; or the last alternative, in which the individual does not acknowledge the supremacy of Allah, in which instance they are declared to be Kafir, the “infidel” or “unbeliever”, and are subject to immediate execution.
Should a “converted” Muslim backslide to the former religious practice, or apostasy, he immediately falls into the Kafir designation, and is subject to immediate execution. Should the Dhimmi choose to assert that Allah is no longer the supreme deity, or fail to pay the jizya on a timely basis, they are also demoted to the class of Kafir, and again are subject to immediate execution.
The ISIS merely carries out these instructions as written in the Koran, with more than average discipline and fervor, but certainly within the interpretations of the relevant sections of the Koran. In the instance of the ISIS, even Muslims are subject to this more strict interpretation, and for merely having a doctrinal difference with the original Arabic declarations of the Koran and various Hadith writings, ‘tradition’, a report of the teachings, deeds and sayings of the Prophet. This means virtually all the Shi’ites, and a number of the less fervent Sunni members, are practicing some form of apostasy, and therefore their lives are forfeit. It is merely a matter of catching and killing these apostates.
Islam is no religion. No infidel or apostate (the "wrong kind" of Muslims who have been victims) is innocent. So he spoke the truth.
They were not innocent they were non Muslims.
“No religion condones the killing of innocents.”
Well, the people who are practicing certainly think so and it is not only the Islamic State. In Iran, Bahai women were raped first before being killed if they were virgins because the blood-thirsty war demon they worship apparently doesn’t like that. That is why ISIS/ISIL does the same thing to little girls.
All over the world, Muslims murder non-Muslims for being so — in the most savage and barbaric manner. This is not a religion being hijacked; it is a religion being practiced.
Here is a list of what they’ve been doing just to Christians in the past month:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/christianattacks.htm
You would think that the POTUS would have access to this kind of information. How he could make such a statement means that he’s ignorant or he hopes that the American people are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.