Blogging time at the asylem.
That Mad Mel is pretty mental eh?

As well as being an Islamo-Christian, Obama has a Buddhist sister. It’s clear he’s trying to synthesise all religions, no doubt as plotted by some Judeo-Marxist academic, probably one who conned his way into America by claiming to be fleeing the Holocaust. It’s all in the Book of Revelations. Gibber.

She’s completely crackers.

Surely the Spectator – if it is to have any claim on being a serious publication – has to drop her soon?

Of course, regarding the facts of the matter she is right and he is wrong – the US Muslim population would not form a large Muslim country.

Imagine that though, someone taking cheap shots at the US President. I note how little it was done to his Republican predecessor.

And well I remember the serious and respectful way supporters of the previous President responded to his critics, high- and low-brow.

That’s a most relevant comment. In the same way that the US, at 52nd, is one of the world’s most Muslim countries.

@6: 52nd

That’s from the current version of the Wikipedia article that Mad Mel used as a source for her Speccie post, which gives the Muslim population of the US as 2.4m (so it has apparently since she saw it, as she quotes 4.5m). But another Wikipedia article says estimates range from 1m to 8m. 8m would stick it in the top 30 (assuming, of course, that all the other figures on Wikipedia, gathered from nearly 300 different sources, are all correct).

@7:
so it has apparently been edited since she saw it

Well, 8m would, but 1m wouldn’t. Top 30 isn’t even high.

If Bush had made such a mistake he would have been mocked too.

What is it with this Melanie Philips obssession?

I’ve always argued that you can fit 1374 angels on a pinhead, assuming that it’s a drawing pin and that the angels have had their wings cut off.

The argument about the stats is pretty silly really ‘one of the largest’ doesn’t have a specific quantifiable meaning – Obama is stretching the point a bit to ask us to interpret that as ‘in the top third’, perhaps that’s just the tried and tested rhetorical tool of exaggeration.

However, what’s worrying about the Melanie Philips’ blog, and the even more rabid comments, is that the “Obama is a messenger sent by the anti-Christ to convert us to Islam and then assume his position at the head of the satanic UN” seems to pass as reasoned and reasonable argument on a the website of what is generally considered to be a leading serious and intelligent right of centre publication.

Well, I suppose all political colours have their crazy side, but the Spectator had better watch out if wants to continue to be taken seriously…

If Bush had made such a mistake he would have been mocked too.

But it’s not the mocking anyone is taking issue with – it’s the latest expression of the “dhimmitude” conspiracy theory, that Obama is a secret Muslim, that there is a secret plot by craven Western politicians to allow Muslims to invade and conquer us. This is a pernicious and rapidly developing conspiracy theory, that Mad Mel keeps coming out with herself and fuelling in her readers.

Are you seriously saying she wasn’t joking?

Imagine that though, someone taking cheap shots at the US President.

Oh yeah – it was regularly said in the secret press that Bush had a secret plan to convert us all to evangelical Christianity.

Oh wait, no, that only applies to a black President who isn’t even a Muslim! But I suspect Melanie Phillips still believes that because she tried her best, during the election campaign, to run that as a conspiracy theory hidden by the evil mainstream press.

She is like the 9/11 Troofers.

I’m sure it was wry, but she has repeatedly shown that she believes the sentiment behind it. And her followers don’t seem to think she was joking.

Surely the presidents identification with muslims in America is a marvelous antidote to extremism?

I think I’m right in saying that America works hard as anybody to accommodate the aspirations of ethnic groups, including the election of a first non-white leader?

I doubt if Mel will adversely affect on the American dream.

Oh dear. Who gave Mel her crayons back?

Even the denizens of the dankest corner of Harry’s Place think Melanoma Flip’s a fart-stuffed bag of dry-roasted. ‘Nuff said.

(And everyone knows its the Illuminati who really run the USA.)

“what is generally considered to be a leading serious and intelligent right of centre publication”

Who the fuck considers this? I certainly don’t.

James

you’re spot on: “If Bush had made such a mistake he would have been mocked too”.

Interesting though is WHY Obama said it.

Does he think that the Islamists will change tune and n longer consider America the Great Satan, if he makes nice speeches and builds some bridges?

Does he even think that if he can get a Palestinian state set up in his term, that the Islamists will shut shop?

Because Obama has got a problem with homegrown Islamic terrorists, as we have in the UK, see today:
“FBI Wants to Know If Ohio Mosque Has Link to Terror.
Nuradin Abdi was convicted in 2007 of planning to blow up an Ohio shopping mall.
Iyman Faris was convicted in 2008 of planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
Christopher Paul was convicted in 2008 of conspiring to use explosives against targets in the U.S. and Europe.
All three terrorists worshiped and socialized at a small mosque in Columbus, Ohio, and, according to David B. Smith, an attorney for Faris, were part of a larger group of jihadists and extremists who frequented the mosque.”

ABC News, June 4th
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/story?id=7758485&page=1

Some have criticised his Egyptian speech: “This double-standard is typified by the way he equivocated on the topic of Muslim persecution vis-à-vis religious minorities, while repeatedly gushing over how he’s helping American Muslims fulfill their zakat obligation and Muslim women wear the hijab vis-à-vis a non-friendly American system.”

Or that he seems to be missing the whole point:
“In the long run, of course, nothing Obama said today makes any difference. After all, he—and the naive notion he embodies that all conflict is a product of “misunderstanding” and the need for “mutual respect”—is but a dot in that long continuum of stark history, one that he neither addressed nor understands.”

The BBC’s Paul reynolds writes:
“And in a passage designed to refute Holocaust deniers, of whom there are quite a few in the Muslim world, he dwells for a time on reasserting the truth: Six million Jews were killed… Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant and hateful. It could hardly be stronger.”

My wife is German. 25 years ago travelling in Mauritania, a Muslim country – when she chatted to people on buses, once they knew she was German they would give her the thumbs up, and say “Hitler good – he kill the Jews. Nazis good. Germans good.”. It was quite a shock for a young German!

The number of Muslims in the U.S.A–according to C.A.I.R and other American Muslim associations, was 20-30 million before 9/11–
and inexplicabley reduced over night to 1.5–2.0 million just after.

The number of Muslims in the U.K was 3–4 million before 7/ 11 and became spontaneoulsly an ethnic group on the verge of exstinction,following the bombings.

In the U.S.A , Muslim organisations attempt to exaggerate the number, having learned that western politicians and the general public are so naive,uninformed and gullible,that we would ( if repeated often enough ) believe any figure.
The higher the figure, the more political ” intimidation ” one can achieve.

In Europe,the situation is the reverse of The U.S.A. At the moment it is convienient for Muslim organisations and govermental departments to underestimate this number, as the true number could be quiet “thought inspireing “,and neither the Corporate industrialists or goverments want negative associations with Islam.

Generally though, both the radicals and moderate Muslims appear to have a infatuation and pride of ” number of Muslims ” in each non-.Muslim country—temporarily reduced to suit the occasion. Demographics are as much as much part of their consciousness as ours.

As for Holocaust denial–there is a wide spread convinction amongst the Mulsim branch of the ( 9/ 11 troofers ) that the Holocaust is a fabrication –and that Hitler did a good job . ???

Obama,s flattering, infantilizing “humour the inmates ” attitude towards the monolithic “Umah” is standard equipment for all western politicians both left and right ( civilizations with low self esteem need an ego boost ),and Lord Tebbits recent comparing of Sharia Law to Kray brothers exstortion and rackettering is a like a breath of fresh air,and demonized nothing that wasn,t just begging to be demonized.

The constant “Orwellian”re-writting of history we are subject to by our own politicians concerning Islams contribution to just about every aspect of Western civilzation
is an insulting
The only contribution I can think of are exploding under pants

“

Obama is getting blasted by commentators all around: eg

“US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths. Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama’s address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama’s speech reflected political convenience.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn’t care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

So too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

Does he think that the Islamists will change tune and n longer consider America the Great Satan, if he makes nice speeches and builds some bridges?

Does he even think that if he can get a Palestinian state set up in his term, that the Islamists will shut shop? (Posted by Just Visiting but Actually Hanging Around a Lot)

Those are brilliant questions, Just Visiting! Allow me to put them to Barack Obama…

Q: So, Mr. President, do you think that the Islamists will change tune and no longer consider America the Great Satan, if you makes nice speeches and builds some bridges?

Obama: No.

Q: OK, but do you even think that if you can get a Palestinian state set up in your term, that the Islamists will shut shop?

Obama: No. Hope that helps!

Q: Hmmm, isn’t there anything you could give me to confirm my baseless prejudice about liberal politics?

Obama: Not really, sorry. Your questions appear to be premised on never reading or listening to a serious argument on foreign policy, history or national security by someone who didn’t share your distorting ideology and glib assumptions, as evidenced by your pointless and largely rhetorical questions which you prefer to throw out there as insinuation rather than even attempt to answer yourself.

Next time try asking something which isn’t a variant on the theme ‘Do libs really think that they can solve every problem in the world by smiling more?’

Alex

Thanks. Now how about addressing the substance of Obama’s speeches.

What’s your view on eg:

“He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights.”

Because, justvisting, it was a speech of “political convenience“. Indeed, Caroline Glick has failed to realise how deeply rooted this “convenience” was; not only did Obama have little wish to provoke reactionaries in the Middle East, he was careful not to stoke the flames of belligerents closer to home. Thus, not only did he steer clear of “so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation“, he brushed over US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was, I don’t doubt, partly to avoid tormenting the fraught sensitivities of Glick, Prager and others.

BenSix – OK, you’re saying Obama intended to offend no-one with the speech.

So the next logical question is how will the various parties use what he did say to support their sides, saying ‘even Obama said XYZ in favour of us’.

For example, will leaders of Muslim lands take what he said (and didn’t say) about women’s rights and democracy, to silence and undermine their native pro-democracy groups, and pro-womens’ rights groups.

Some people think so, eg:

“In an effort to find common ground with Islam, Mr Obama posits a false equivalence between the struggle for women’s rights in the United States and the Muslim-majority countries he discusses. This is pandering at the expense of women and ignores a slate of human-rights offences from enforced veiling to stonings and honour killings. ”

And actually it looks like old Dub’ya was better at telling the truth about women to the Muslim world when he said a while back:

“Building powerful economies also requires expanding the role of women in society. This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family — (laughter and applause) — and my own administration. (Applause.) As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing.”

In fact, Obama (selectively0 quoted a Qur’an verse about waging war to argue for peace and shared interests!!

He said: “As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.”

Ironically, the Qur’anic passage from which his quote comes actually is about fighting unbelievers, and doesn’t remotely lead to thoughts of coming together with people with whom one has differences.
Obama quoted 9:119, which Pickthall translates: “O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful.”

The Qu’ran continues:
“It is not for the townsfolk of Al-Madinah and for those around them of the wandering Arabs to stay behind the messenger of Allah and prefer their lives to his life. That is because neither thirst nor toil nor hunger afflicteth them in the way of Allah, nor step they any step that angereth the disbelievers, nor gain they from the enemy a gain, but a good deed is recorded for them therefor. Lo! Allah loseth not the wages of the good. Nor spend they any spending, small or great, nor do they cross a valley, but it is recorded for them, that Allah may repay them the best of what they used to do. And the believers should not all go out to fight. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may gain sound knowledge in religion, and that they may warn their folk when they return to them, so that they may beware. O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). — 9:120-123″

Astonishing.

In that passage, the Qur’an is scolding Muslims who refused to accompany Muhammad on his expedition to Tabouk in northern Arabia, where he wanted to fight a Byzantine garrison. The Byzantines weren’t there when he arrived, and so there was no battle, but he was considerably angered that some Muslims in Medina and among the Bedouins (“wandering Arabs”) had refused to make the trip — they “prefer[red] their lives to his life.” The Qur’an promises that if they do anything that “angereth the disbelievers,” they will be credited with having done a good deed, and Allah will repay them for such good deeds. The Muslims should fight the unbelievers and be harsh with them.

Obama picked out of this one sentence that made it appear as if the Qur’an was simply counseling one to speak the truth, mindful of the divine presence. In reality, the passage is about the necessity to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers, and not to fail to perform this duty. He took a passage about warfare and division and passed it off as part of a call for us all to come together and sing kumbaya.

Er, justvisiting, if you’re going to quote Robert Spencer then you could at least credit him. Especially as your post from “Ironically…” downwards is all – barring the “astonishing” – directly snipped from Jihad Watch.

you’re quite right, I forgot to put quote marks in that last post, to show it wasn’t my words.

What’s your view on Obama’s (mis)quoting of the Qu’ran?

Well, very plausibly it’s as Spencer says it is. He seems to think that it’s a significant “gotcha!”, but, as I’ve said, I think that Obama’s purpose was essentially to ingratiate himself with as many people as possible, so I doubt he’d care what he was cutting and pasting.

Beyond being a good spot, what’s the importance?

So you have a pretty low opinion of Obama then! And the ‘spot’ gives evidence that you’re right to see him as just an ingratiator.

If that’s right – then I guess we’d all agree that his foreign policy won’t achieve much of anything, if it starts on such a substance-free basis.

Only time will tell, if he is to become even more willing to overlook the problems of the Islamic world, and more demanding of democratic nations – or vice versa.

“So you have a pretty low opinion of Obama then!”

True. In fact, I’m beginning to suspect that his campaign was an elaborate test of the world’s critical faculties

If that’s right – then I guess we’d all agree that his foreign policy won’t achieve much of anything, if it starts on such a substance-free basis.

I don’t think he turned on the charm for love in and of itself – more to smooth over US human rights abuses.

“Only time will tell, if he is to become even more willing to overlook the problems of the Islamic world, and more demanding of democratic nations – or vice versa.”

Well, I suspect that he’ll be soft on the abuses of his allies – Saudi Arabia, say, or Uzbekistan – and harder on those of his enemies – see, for example, the railing against Iran for arresting a journalist despite the fact the US has – you can see this coming, can’t you? – arrested a journalist.