Is Literal Christianism compatible with civilization? No. “Literal” means, according to the mythical “Jesus” his “New Testament”, AND also the Old Testament (“Jesus” “said”; Jesus insisted the Old Testament was part of his message, maybe because he did not want to be condemned to death right away). The Old Testament shows a jealous, mass-homicidal, cruel, non-sensical, sexist and demented God ruling the heavens. “Believers” are supposed to take order from that crazy monster in heavens. Literal Islam reveres the exact same God (and actually Islam reveres “The Book” (= The Bible), and “prophet” Jesus).
Literal Islam (by literal I mean straight out of Islamist texts) is NOT compatible with civilization. For the exact same overall reason as Literal Christianism is not compatible with civilization (that’s why the Franks, and then later again, after it grew back, the Enlightenment, knocked it down). Literal Christianism’s implementation has been outlawed everywhere in the West. For the same reason, the same should be done for Literal Islam. Obama went to a mosque, and preached the world what Islam was. I comment, you decide.
Obama: “…since 9/11, but more recently, since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, you [The “Muslims”] ’ve seen too often people conflating the horrific acts of terrorism with the beliefs of an entire faith.”
All too often, what? Notice that Obama is here coming to the defense of “the beliefs of an entire faith“. However, the first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. Is Obama establishing Islam, as president of the USA, by claiming that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with the beliefs of Islam?
The Qur’an (= The Recitation) consists in 80,000 words which are orders from “God”. Some, clearly, order to kill some categories of people. As far as I can see, the “terrorists” are implementing these orders, and this is also what the “terrorists” believe. The “terrorists” are, first of all, believers in an entire faith, warts and all. Missing that point, is missing how “terrorism” seduces disgruntled youth.
There are hundreds of beliefs in Islam which contradicts democracy, or even the simplest humanity. Consider Hadith 041; 6985: this Hadith, and several similar to this one, supposedly proffered by Muhammad, ask to kill all the Jews. Only then would God proceed with the Final Judgment. This is one of the central beliefs of Islam. By claiming, implicitly, that Hadith 041; 6985 has nothing to do with terrorism, is Obama saying that killing all the Jews has nothing to do with terrorism?
Obama sees a vast oppression against Muslims, all around the USA. Says Obama: “Around the country, women wearing the hijab — just like Sabah — have been targeted… Some of them are parents, and they talked about how their children were asking, are we going to be forced out of the country, or, are we going to be rounded up? Why do people treat us like that?… I’ve had people write to me and say, I feel like I’m a second-class citizen. I’ve had mothers write and say, “my heart cries every night,” thinking about how her daughter might be treated at school.”
Wow, wow, wow. Talk about hysteria. Whatever “targeted” means. Obama is depicting Muslim women “targeted around the country”, which is, as far as I can see, counterfactual anti-Americanism. It’s ironical that the President, who has condemned “anti-Americanism”, with truculence, where it is perfectly justified, engages in it, by inventing ‘facts’ trotting in his head.
I have seen pretend “women” wearing integral veils in the USA, and nobody bothered them, although it should be unlawful in the USA. The integral veil is explicitly unlawful in more and more countries, because it’s used, as in Algeria in 1950s, to carry bombs. Several African countries made it unlawful recently. To boot, Africa is really hot, and when I lived for decades, I never saw an integral veil. The apparition of those is directly related to the inception of religious “Islamist” war.
Obama: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”
This is not correct. First of all, Islam generally arrived in most places with dozens of thousands of slashing swords of vast moving cavalry armies. To pretend otherwise is either to be grossly ignorant of history, or a liar, or both (because one pretends to know what one does not know). I have explained this, many times. Just as I have explained many times that “Islam” means SUBMISSION, it does not mean peace, it means SUBMISSION. Obama should read me more carefully. Or then read Houellebecq who wrote the best-seller “Submission”. Instead of quoting myself, I will quote Wikipedia:
‘Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness and peace. In a religious context it means “voluntary submission to God”. Islām is the verbal noun of Form IV of the root, and means “submission” or “surrender”.’
Obama knows this, and if he is following the gutter interpretation of the word “Islam”, it’s deliberate disinformation. (He is harping on the Common Misinformation that “Islam is the religion of peace”…)
Obama: …”like so many faiths, Islam is rooted in a commitment to compassion and mercy and justice and charity. Whoever wants to enter paradise, the Prophet Muhammad taught, “let him treat people the way he would love to be treated.”
All “faiths” have to be rooted in compassion, mercy, justice and charity, because so are human beings. One catches flies with honey, not by scaring them. Even Nazism caught its flies, its adherents, with honey. Lots of honey. Nazism was all about minority rights, justice, compassion (for those who deserved it). So compassion, mercy, justice and charity are a given in all religions. Aztec philosophers explained to the Conquistadores that the Aztec faith was much more charitable, human, merciful than Christianism (an irrelevant rejoinder, as the Conquistadores used Christianism as just another reason to massacre the Aztecs).
“Like so many faiths Islam is rooted in goodness?” Goodness is a Trojan Horse. Of around 10,000 “faiths” known, more than 99% encouraged human sacrifices (including the ancient Celtic, Punic, Aztec religions. Notice that religious barbarity does not mean primitivism in all ways: the Celts’ metallurgy was the world’s best, but they had the bad idea to burn Roman soldiers alive).
And “Islam”, Literal Islam, explicitly say, in hundreds of places, that those who kill in the name of God will go directly to Paradise (they will not have to go through the “Final Judgment”).
Obama: “Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name. We’ve seen it before, across faiths. But right now, there is a organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.”
“Draws selectively from Islamic Texts”? Tu quoque (And you too). The problem is that what they draw selectively are orders from God to kill categories of people (mostly, as one can see on TV everyday, other “Muslims”, who are “misinterpreting” the sacred texts, allegedly…) If you go see an organized crime boss, and he flatters you for half an hour, then to finally say:”Kill him!”, the important part of the discourse is “Kill him”. It’s actually why Obama is surrounded by a small army, wherever he goes. Because of this very short order, possibly floating around: “Kill him!”. Obama is well protected against this order of Islamist texts, ‘kill him’, he will have secret service protection for at least a decade. The rest of us? Who cares?
Then Obama draws selectively from the Qur’an, doing exactly what Al Qaeda and ISIL do, according to him. There are magnificent sentences, or even ideas, in the Qur’an (most of them not original). Says Obama:
“O mankind,” the Koran teaches, we have “made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.”
Obama then says Jefferson was accused to be a “Muslim”. The generation of rebels just before the Founding Fathers in America, believed in “Nature’s God” and were anti-Christian (following Spinoza and the rest of the Enlightenment). Muslims, like Christians, are Abrahamists. They believe that a particular God who feels it’s cool to order parents to kill their children should be revered (and revered, just because of that particular trait: it’s spanking gone lethally insane, of the highest order of dementia). More civilized, or simply normal people, disagree strongly with finding the desire to order parents to kill their children admirable. Abrahamism could arise only in a land with too many children, prehistoric men, in the last 20 million years, would have considered that a religion which suggests to kill children is impossible, because defending children is mission number one of what defines humanity.
Jefferson, however admirable his discourses, was a great destroyer of Indians, and a pedophile who made pregnant children he had enslaved (in spite of the ultimatum of the French police in Paris).
Speaking of France, was Obama’s speech bad in all ways? No, he tried to make some medicine go down with the sugar coat:
Obama: “…there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault –sometimes by Muslims. We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone.(Applause.) And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
So none of us can be silent. We can’t be bystanders to bigotry. And together, we’ve got to show that America truly protects all faiths.”
Where is it in the Constitution that “America protects all faiths?” Certainly not: starting with Roman law more than 2,000 years ago, religions requiring human sacrifices are not protected, but, instead, outlawed. (The argument can be made that Literal Islam is a human sacrifice religion.)
After this flickering of the flame of truth, all too soon scorched by it, Obama gravely relapses through hopeless confusion:
“ Groups like ISIL are desperate for legitimacy. They try to portray themselves as religious leaders and holy warriors who speak for Islam. I refuse to give them legitimacy. We must never give them that legitimacy. (Applause.) They’re not defending Islam. They’re not defending Muslims.”
Grand Ayatollah Obama knows Islam better than the Muslims of the Islamist State, and refuses to “give them legitimacy”. And Obama sails away:
The vast majority of the people they kill are innocent Muslim men, women and children. (Applause.)
And, by the way, the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are. We can’t be at war with any other religion because the world’s religions are a part of the very fabric of the United States, our national character. (Applause.)
So the best way for us to fight terrorism is to deny these organizations legitimacy and to show that here in the United States of America, we do not suppress Islam; we celebrate and lift up the success of Muslim Americans. That’s how we show the lie that they’re trying to propagate. (Applause.) We shouldn’t play into terrorist propaganda. And we can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.”
Grand Ayatollah Obama knows that we “can’t suggest that Islam itself is at the root of the problem. That betrays our values.” Apparently, our core value have to do with sheer lunacy. Reading the Qur’an front to back, in a non-censored edition shows it to be as violent as the most violent book of the Marquis de Sade. Except Sade is meant to describe the activities of plutocrats, in a parodies, whereas, when the God of the Qur’an condemns people to atrocious torture to death, again and again and again, He is serious; it’s a religious order. And implicitly enjoins his followers to do the same. See “Violence in the Holy Qur’an“.
Once again, the question is: what is Islam? Islam according to Grand Ayatollah Obama, or Sufi Islam from West Africa, is completely different from Literal, Salafist, Wahhabist Islam. But only the latter is simple to describe, because it’s in the texts, and one can ferret it, armed with the Principle of Abrogation.
Then Obama’s discourse comes close to Orwellian double-speak:
“…across our country and around the world, Muslim leaders are roundly and repeatedly and consistently condemning terrorism. And around the globe, Muslims who’ve dared to speak out have often been targeted and even killed. So those voices are there; we just have to amplify them more.”
What? We want to amplify them more, so we can target and even kill them, more?
A French study on French Islamist terrorists is just out: there are more than 8,000 now, who are known to security agencies. That’s double the number of a year ago. 20% are children. 38% are converts. All together, they have generally been recruited by… professional recruiters, and other “Muslim” leaders.
Bearing on, Obama turns into pseudo-Islamist scholar:
“These are the voices of Muslim clerics who teach that Islam prohibits terrorism, for the Koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths; and Muslim teachers who point out that the first word revealed in the Koran — igra — means “read” — to seek knowledge, to question assumptions. (Applause.)”
Absent an explicit denunciation of Taquiyah and the Principle of Abrogation, to describe the Qur’an that way,is all Taquiyah (lying to non-Muslims in matter of Islam).
Basically, there are statements to the contrary elsewhere in the Qur’an, and the Abrogation Principle and precise datation of the statements abrogate the preceding. All Muslim scholars know this, but Grand Ayatollah Obama behaves as if he did not. (In truth he does, of course, but an electable politician who can’t lie, can’t think.)
RULE & DIVIDE, SAY PLUTOCRATS:
Plutocrats, by defending implicitly Literal Islam, create an constant abscess, pain, and raging conflict which distracts the world from the fact it’s led by a few. I was talking to a Saudi friend yesterday, and she told me with the utmost assurance that the upper reaches of Saudi Arabia, the top Saudis were positively, absolutely totally, dedicated atheists, agnostics, etc. But, of course, only in safe private. In public, they are just the exact opposite.
Thus the Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia is just a show. Interpreted literally, though, Islam is the perfect religion to get mental retards to explode themselves in suicide missions, because, if they believe in Literal Islam, doing this is the best way to go to paradise. And they believe, so they explode.
And it’s perfect for plutocrats, because, this way, everybody talks about interpretations of a religion which rose in the desert before the Middle Ages, instead of whom it is who really rules the USA (and thus the world).
Meanwhile a UN panel will conclude Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being “arbitrarily detained” in the UK, the Swedish foreign ministry said.
Assange leaked to the world internal documents which were top secret, showing US forces annihilating journalists and their would-be rescuers, among other things. One can imagine that Assange would have revealed a tape of Nazis shooting and killing, civilians and their would-be rescuers, and then having Sweden accused Assange of rape (Sweden was Nazi Germany’s most important willing collaborator in World War Two; it provided Hitler with its most important weapon, and its crucial high grade iron).
Who did Assange “rape”? Somebody who organized a party, for Assange, two days after the alleged “rape”… The rape was alleged later. And who is the accuser? She had been earlier arrested in Cuba as a CIA operative. (In a way the story is allegorically true: Assange “raped” the CIA!)
No wonder the Grand Ayatollah Obama cherry picks the Qur’an: anything but talking about what he is really responsible of. Like the witch hunt against WikiLeaks, for revealing American war crimes. OK, a little injection of “God” should help here.
Grand Ayatollah Obama ended thus his sacred discourse:
“May God’s peace be upon you. May God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much, everybody.”
That’s an improvement: I use to rail GAO (Grand Ayatollah Obama) for ordering “God” to bless the USA. But now GAO has sat on his rump long enough, and meditated upon that point, apparently. GAO has decided that, indeed, to order “God” to “Bless the USA” puts him, implicitly, above “God”. And that, somehow, was not “cool”. GAO wants to be “cool”. So now GAO suggests to God what to do. Progress. This is the sort of progress we have learned to expect from GAO. Changes we can believe in. Tini-tiny ridiculous little changes.