Was Barack Obama a Muslim?

[Faith-Hope_Love]

Hi Ibrahim

By the bleeding obvious I meant the difference between islam as a faith, and the relatively recent ideology of islamofascism. And it is recent, you can trace its roots back to a handful of 20th century egyptians like sayyed al kutb and ayman al zawahiri (yes, THAT ayman al zawahiri). But I had to mention this because it appears to me that more than a few people in this thread equate the two, thinking that all muslims are terrorists (either actually terrorists or potentially terrorists).

If all muslims in the world (all 1+ billion of them) were terrorists, the world would look very different to how it looks today.

That's not to say that islam, the faith, isn't aggressive in pushing itself on 'infidels', I'm only saying that this doesn't universally happen through violence. And I think the distinction is not only an honest one, but a useful one.

For instance when I oppose sharia courts in my country (or in america on in canada) I don't do that because i think it's a slippery slope to terrorism, I oppose sharia courts on their own merit. My fellow countrymen, and women, deserve better than the kind of medieval caprice that the sharia courts can call justice.

I think this is more honest, and also more fair, than to brand people terrorists.


Where the distinction between the faith and terrorism starts to fail however is in places like egypt. Look at the events in abu fana monastery and the way that authorities either let crime happen or just refuse to do anything about it and the difference between plain old islam, and islamoascism becomes less clear.

But this isn't really the case in the west.

[Ibrahim Al Copti]

Dear Faith

And it is recent, you can trace its roots back to a handful of 20th century egyptians like sayyed al kutb and ayman al zawahiri (yes, THAT ayman al zawahiri)

Do you why they started the Muslim brotherhood movement ?

If all muslims in the world (all 1+ billion of them) were terrorists, the world would look very different to how it looks today.

nobody would say that ...

But the obvious to me that you are confusing Islam as an ideology and Muslims how much they stick to that ideology

difference between islam as a faith, and the relatively recent ideology of islamofascism

Islamofascism is a western term trying to make sense of all the Islamic violence happening

But actually, Islam as an ideology that condone terror and violence , whether you call it Fascism, Nazism, ......etc

and u said it

That's not to say that islam, the faith, isn't aggressive in pushing itself on 'infidels',

I totally agree

I'm only saying that this doesn't universally happen through violence. And I think the distinction is not only an honest one, but a useful one.

Of course, violence is not the only tool to force ideology on some people
There are many other ways
including deceit (Al-taqiyya)
Dhimmitude
Slavery

So, I agree with you that violence and terror are not the only means ...
They are part of a big package
fortunately enough, not all Muslims, especially non-Arabic speaking, practice the whole package

the closer and deeper u get inside the Islamic ideology, the more you get closer to more ugly parts of the package

God bless +++

[Faith-Hope_Love]

Hi Ibrahim

well it's true that the koran has calls to violence in it, but I still give weight to practice over theory.

If you read the old testament as literally as you read the koran then jews today would have a duty to do violent things like stoning people for not observing the sabbath, and stoning kids for being disobedient. This is not actually done, I wouldn't go calling judaism 'a barbaric ideology'.

You can read the new testament, especially st paul, and still come out respecting women, but only after some heavy interpretation. Which is partly why I don't think that christianity is 'a mysogynistic ideology', but i still slightly cringe when i hear it being read at weddings.

And you can't really blame muslims (or give them any credit) for what's written in their book, very few people in history have had the luxury of writing their own scrpture.

But you say that islam itself is violent, and that the majority, who don't practice violence are somehow non-perfect or non-complete muslims, and this could be proven from the book, but what do you say to hundreds of millions who believe that they are just fine muslims without violence, and they're not aspiring to jihad, that they're wrong? Should they perhaps be teaching their children violence so that their kids can be better muslims than their parents? should they give up islam altogether? or is there an option im missing here.

Oh yes, and why did they start the muslim brotherhood ?

[Ibrahim Al Copti]

Dear Faith

well it's true that the koran has calls to violence in it, but I still give weight to practice over theory.

This is your opinion, but unfortunately not the opinion of most of the Muslim clergy

I admit, there are some peaceful sects within islam like sufi's ... but not Sunnis or Shiites

You can read the new testament, especially st paul, and still come out respecting women, but only after some heavy interpretation.

I agree with the first half
but the "heavy interpretation" part is very subjective

And you can't really blame muslims (or give them any credit) for what's written in their book, very few people in history have had the luxury of writing their own scrpture.

Who said that I blame Muslims .... absolutely not
I blame Islam the ideology
Muslims are just victims by inheritance

But you say that islam itself is violent,

That not exactly what I said
I said

Islam as an ideology that condone terror and violence

But Islam is not only violence

who don't practice violence are somehow non-perfect or non-complete muslims,

Where did I say that
I think u better quote from my post than saying things that I didn't say

Oh yes, and why did they start the muslim brotherhood

This is from their website

حكم الجهاد

وبالنسبة لحكم الجهاد في الإسلام فالمعلوم أن أهل العلم مجتهدين ومقلدين سلفيين وخلفيين أجمعوا على أن الجهاد فرض كفاية على الأمة الإسلامية لنشر الدعوة وفرض عين لدفع هجوم الكفار عليها ولقد مرت على الأمة الإسلامية فترة والمسلمين مستذلون لغيرهم قد ديست أرضهم وانتهكت حرماتهم وحكمهم الكفار وأماتوا روح الجهاد عندهم ولكن هذه الحال أوجبت على كل مسلم أن يتجهز وينطوي على نية الجهاد وإعداد العدة للتحرر ولذلك عندما أنشأ الإمام الشهيد حسن البنا جماعة الإخوان المسلمين لإعادة بناء الدولة الإسلامية وعلى رأسها الخلافة الإسلامية حرص على بعث روح الجهاد في النفوس فأطلق على دعوة الإخوان دعوة الحق والقوة والحرية وجعل شارتها (سيفان بينهما مصحف وتحتها لفظ وأعدوا)رمزا للآية الكريمة .{وأعدوا لهم ما استطعتم من قوة ومن رباط الخيل }.ثم نجد من هتاف الإخوان ضمن الشعارات ((الجهاد سبيلنا ))((والموت في سبيل الله أسمى أمانينا )).
http://www.daawa-info.net/books1.php...bn=157&page=11

Translated (~the red font):

martyr Imam Hassan al-Banna established the Muslim Brotherhood [COLOR = "Red"] for Muslims to rebuild the Islamic state, and foremost Islamic Caliphate[/ COLOR]. So he was keen to send The spirit of jihad in the [Muslims] hearts ....

So, Islamofascism (as you call it) is actually based on a trial for the comeback of the Islamic empire (based on Islamic ideology) that ruled the old and middle ages with brutality

So, I still don't see the difference (or the obvious)

God bless +++

[Faith-Hope_Love]

Hi Ibrahim

It looks like you and I have crossed purposes, in so many way, in only one post, that it's almost funny. I've put words in your mouth, in most cases unintentionally, and i'm sorry for that.

You said that

This is your opinion, but unfortunately not the opinion of most of the Muslim clergy

I admit, there are some peaceful sects within islam like sufi's ... but not Sunnis or Shiites

True true, and it seems that you and I agree that a reasonable method to judge islam is by what it does not what it says (or not only what it says) because there are plenty of contradictions within islam and between different sects of it.

On my view of the new testament being occasionally sexist, yes, it is a subjective judgement, absolutely. That's not fact, that's my opinion.

Who said that I blame Muslims .... absolutely not
I blame Islam the ideology
Muslims are just victims by inheritance

It looks like you and I agree on this as well.
Here I was either misunderstood, or I just flatly put words in your mouth.

I really didn't mean to put words in your mouth there, I'm sorry for that. I was using the word 'blame' in a passive sense. Rather than using the verb 'blame', I should probably have used the more passive third person 'can't be blamed, can't be credited' or 'not responsible for writing', or just write what I wrote differently.

Next,

But you say that islam itself is violent,

That not exactly what I said
I said

إقتباس:
Islam as an ideology that condone terror and violence

Same diff. If a religion, political point of view or any other ideology condones violence then it is in itself violent, even if that's only one of its many values, but I have to apologise here for, seemingly, putting words in your mouth, again i didn't mean to.

Finally

who don't practice violence are somehow non-perfect or non-complete muslims,
Where did I say that
I think u better quote from my post than saying things that I didn't say


This you definitely didn't say, and I again apologise for putting words in your mouth, but I synthesised this from two things you said earlier. I'll tell you how I did that and you tell me where i went wrong.

1. islam is a violent ideology, (or just condones violence)
2. not all muslims may practice violence but that's only a detail, islam condones violence

It seems to me that a person that practices more of their religion's ideals is a more complete muslim, or more perfect muslim. Kind of like the way that people want to complete or improve themselves in christianity by practicing christian things.

[Faith-Hope_Love]

Hi Ibrahim

Responding to what you said about the origin of the muslim brotherhood (and all the other terrorist groups and thugs that I collectively call islamofascists)

you said


So, Islamofascism (as you call it) is actually based on a trial for the comeback of the Islamic empire (based on Islamic ideology) that ruled the old and middle ages with brutality

So, I still don't see the difference (or the obvious)

The difference is that some muslims, the group within muslims that i'm most concerned about, just want to get on with life and be left alone like anybody else and, left to their own devices, wouldn't want to establish a muslim caliphate.

A second group is the one that wants to go further and make islam a political power or establish a caliphate, and they usually want to do this whether the non muslims like it or not, and yes there are plenty of things in muslim tradition and in the koran that give them their justification.

The first group I think ought to be treated with respect just like anybody else and I mean specifically that if somebody, like obama (the original point of this thread) is thought to be a muslim, then that doesn't automatically mean that he's sympathetic to terrorists, or that he would be ineffective in the role of fighting terrorism for the reason of being muslim alone.

But that second group of muslims can answer either to reason or to the 82nd airborne.

[Ibrahim Al Copti]

dear faith

The first group I think ought to be treated with respect just like anybody else and I mean specifically that if somebody, like obama (the original point of this thread)

I cannot agree more
But still these moderate Mulsims need to help the Islamic theology to become more tolerant
They bear some responsibilty to their religion

God bless +++

[HAMOUKAS]

PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE

To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission,
U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authorities

Whereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;

Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;

Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;

Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;

Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;

Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;

SIGN THE PETITION

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81550

Total Signatures: 200,000

[HAMOUKAS]

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve

The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,7258812.story

[HAMOUKAS]

The power of the cartoonist

New York state Senator Eric Adams was among those protesting at the cartoon

"Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon," the New York Post wrote in an editorial apologising for the offence caused by an image of policemen shooting a chimpanzee dead.

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one cop tells the other.

Uproar greeted its publication on Wednesday, with demonstrators objecting to what they regarded as a racist depiction of President Barack Obama.

The Post responded by saying it was merely meant to mock an "ineptly written" bill.

The line that it was "just" a cartoon, though, has scandalised cartoonists.

Kevin "Kal" Kallaugher, editorial cartoonist for the Economist for the last 30 years, described the remark as "sad".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7902768.stm

[HAMOUKAS]

استطلاع للراى:(11%) من الأمريكيين يعتقدون أن أوباما مسلم

واشنطن - أظهر استطلاع للرأي في الولايات المتحدة أن واحدا من كل عشرة أمريكيين يعتقدون أن الرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما مسلم، وذلك بعد مرور شهرين على أدائه اليمين الدستورية على الإنجيل.

وأشار الاستطلاع الذي أجرته مؤسسة "بيو ريسرتش" وشمل 1308 أشخاص إلى أن البروتستانت الإنجيليين البيض والجمهوريين كانوا في مقدمة من يعتقد أن الرئيس باراك حسين أوباما مسلم، حيث إن خمس الذين يعتقدون أن أوباما مسلم كانوا من الإنجيليين، بينما كان 17% من الجمهوريين يتبنون الأمر ذاته.

وفى السياق ذاته فإن نسبة من قال إن أوباما مسيحي سواء من الإنجيليين البيض أو الجمهوريين لم يتعد النصف؛ فقد بلغت نسبة من قال من الإنجيليين البيض إن أوباما مسلم نحو 38% بينما بلغت تلك النسبة في صفوف الجمهوريين نحو 46 %.

وحتى بين الديمقراطيين لم تتجاوز نسبة من قال إن أوباما مسيحي 55% بينما أكد 7% منهم أن الرئيس الأمريكي أوباما مسلم، بحسب ما أوضحه الاستطلاع.

[HAMOUKAS]

Buyer's Remorse, Democrat Arrogance

Last week's big Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia proved what the Obama Administration's apologists in the liberal mainstream media have been avoiding telling you -- the bloom is off the Barack Obama rose.

As hard as the White House and leftist pundits try to spin Election Day's results, there's no arguing the big change in voter attitudes toward the Obama Agenda.

In 2008, Barack Obama carried Virginia by 6%, and the Democrat stronghold of New Jersey by 14%.

Last week? New Jersey's GOP candidate for governor Chris Christie bested incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine by 4 percentage points, and in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell defeated his Democrat opponent by 18 points -- that's a 24% turnaround!

Friend, Barack Obama won election last year, aided by his claims of moderation and transparency, and the huge cover he received from the adoring liberal media. Many Americans gave the relatively unknown first term Illinois senator the benefit of the doubt, and are now coming to regret it.

Instead of centrist policies, they have seen an extreme far-left assault on private enterprise and personal liberties. From pork barrel "stimulus" to unprecedented government spending and debt, and auto company takeovers to the present attempt at a socialist seizure of health care.

In New Jersey and Virginia, the voters have realized their mistake -- and sent a clear message to the Obama Democrats. When polled in both states about their votes for the Republican candidate, 68% and 74% respectively agreed that they were sending a message to the Obama team that they were "unhappy with the direction they are taking Washington and the country."

But are the Democrats listening? Not a chance. Instead, despite losing in two states where Democrats had controlled the governor's mansion for years, Nancy Pelosi arrogantly declared "We won!" Then she and her leftist followers dismissed the clear will of the people and rammed their socialist health care takeover scheme through the House of Representatives on Saturday.

Our victories last week are a great start, but as long as the radical Obama-Pelosi liberals are determined to force their socialist agenda on the American people, our work isn't done.

You can help our Party spread the word about the Obama-Pelosi Democrats' disastrous, arrogant plans, and help us recruit the commonsense, conservative Republican candidates today who will defeat them in next year's crucial mid-term elections

.

[sandrawilson]

If you still have doubts or certain hesitations about Barack Obama, you may read one of the most interesting articles ever - it is accessible at http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/essay-about-barack-obama