As the world reacts with shock and horror at the increasingly savage deeds of the Islamic State (IS)—most recently the immolation of a captive—U.S. President Obama’s response has been one of nonjudgmental relativism.
Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, Obama counseled Americans to get off their “high horse” and remember that Christians have been equally guilty of such atrocities:
Unless we get on our high horse and think this [beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, roasting humans] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.
There is so much to be said here. First, the obvious: the wide gulf between violence and hate “justified in the name of Christ” and violence and hate “justified in the name of Muhammad” is that Christ never justified it, while Muhammad continuously did.
This is not just a theoretic point; it is the very reason that Muslims are still committing savage atrocities. Every evil act IS commits—whether beheading, crucifying, raping, enslaving, or immolating humans—has precedents in the deeds of Muhammad, that most “perfect” and “moral” man, per Koran 33:21 and 68:4 (see “The Islamic State and Islam” for parallels).
Does Obama know something about Christ—who eschewed violence and told people to love and forgive their enemies—that we don’t? Perhaps he’s clinging to that solitary verse that academics like Philip Jenkins habitually highlight, that Christ—who “spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not” once said, “I come not to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34, 13:34).
Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that Christians will be persecuted, including by family members (as, for example, when a Muslim family slaughters their child for “apostatizing” to Christianity as happens frequently).
Conversely, in its fatwa justifying the burning of the Jordanian captive, the Islamic State cites Muhammad putting out the eyes of some with “heated irons” (he also cut their hands and feet off). The fatwa also cites Khalid bin al-Walid—the heroic “Sword of Allah”—who burned apostates to death, including one man whose head he set on fire to cook his dinner on.
Nor is the Islamic State alone in burning people. Recently a “mob accused of burning alive a Christian couple in an industrial kiln in Pakistan allegedly wrapped a pregnant mother in cotton so she would catch fire more easily.”
As for the Islamic “authorities,” Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s oldest and most prestigious university which cohosted Obama’s 2009 “New Beginning” speech—still assigns books that justify every barbarity IS commits, including burning people alive. Moreover, Al Azhar—a religious institution concerned with what is and is not Islamic—has called for the cutting off of the hands and feet of IS members, thereby legitimizing such acts according to Islamic law.
On the other hand, does Obama know of some secret document in the halls of the Vatican that calls for amputating, beheading or immolating enemies of Christ to support his religious relativism?
As for the much maligned Crusades, Obama naturally follows the mainstream academic narrative that anachronistically portrays the crusaders as greedy, white, Christian imperialists who decided to conquer peace-loving Muslims in the Middle East.
Again, familiarity with the true sources and causes behind the Crusades shows that they were a response to the very same atrocities being committed by the Islamic State today. Consider the words of Pope Urban II, spoken almost a millennium ago, and note how well the portions in bold perfectly mirror IS behavior:
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country [as slaves], and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion …. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent…. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength…
If the crusaders left their own lands and families to come to the aid of persecuted Christians and to liberate Jerusalem, here is Obama portraying them as no better than the Islamic State—which isn’t surprising considering that, far from helping persecuted Christians, Obama’s policies have significantly worsened their plight.
The true lesson of the Crusades is that Islamic violence has been remarkably consistent, down to its very patterns of persecution. And, according to primary historical texts—not modern day fantasies peddled by the likes of Karen Armstrong—Muslim persecution of Christians was indeed a primary impetus for the Crusades.
As for the Inquisition, this too took place in the context of Christendom’s struggle with Islam. (Isn’t it curious that the European nation most associated with the Inquisition, Spain, was also the one ruled longest by, and heavily populated with, Muslims?) After the Christian reconquest of Spain, Muslims, seen as untrustworthy, were ordered either to convert to Christianity or go back to Africa whence they came. Countless Muslims feigned conversion by practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert Spain back to Islam. Hence the extreme measures of the Inquisition—which, either way, find no support in the teachings of Christ.
Conversely, after one of his jihads, Muhammad had a man tortured to death with fire in order to reveal his tribe’s hidden treasure and “married” the same man’s wife hours later. Unsurprisingly, the woman, Safiya, later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” her.
In short, Obama’s claim that there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends” is patently false when applied to the Islamic State and like organizations and individuals.
Muhammad himself called for the murder of his enemies; he permitted Muslims to feign friendship to his enemies in order to assassinate them; he incited his followers to conquer and plunder non-believers, promising them a sexual paradise if they were martyred; he kept sex slaves and practiced pedophilia with his “child-bride,” Aisha.
He, the prophet of Islam, did everything the Islamic State is doing.
If Muslims are supposed to follow the sunna, or example, of Muhammad, and if Muhammad engaged in and justified every barbarity being committed by the Islamic State and other Muslims—how, exactly, are they “hijacking” Islam?
Such is the simple logic Obama fails to grasp. Or else he does grasp it—but hopes most Americans don’t.
Amen Raymond!!
Most of my fellow Catholic priests would say the same as Obama! From Canada.
The Canadian sell outs are not the only ones. Karen Armstrong is English and a former nun ( BTW, don’t even get me started on the crazy Brits and what they’ve allowed to happen to the UK). Ever heard of John Louis Esposito from Georgetown ( “Jesuit” no more) University? He’s Muslim apologist extraordinaire.
But, he’s far from the only one. It’s amazing how quickly some of these so-called priests will turn their backs on Christ and his teachings, in favor of Saudi bucks.
How much outrage did the Western Catholic clergy show when their brothers and sisters were being massacred, raped, and displaced by this scourge, in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, etc? I’m glad that the Charlie Hebdo incident struck a nerve. But, shame on all of the clergy who should know better. There are only 1500 years of historical bad acts to validate current events.
What a contemptuous president. We should pray for his soul!
3 groups, or combinations there of, of Islam apologists:
1) Group Clueless: Misguided notion that all “religions” are created the same. Islam’s dogma is violent, but most uninformed people incorrectly believe that it’s teachings are no different than those of Judeo/Christianity.
2) Group “On the Take” : On the receiving end of Saudi/Qatari/Gulen , etc. $$$$$. In other words, financial or political rewards are enabled by sucking up, putting head in sand, and/or applying the word “Islamophobe,” on a regular basis, to folks unbound by pc, ignorance, and/or financial gain. .
3) Group Liar : The prophet encouraged his flock to lie (“taqiyya”) to infidels. It’s a common, revered practice in Islam to lie. Do the Judeo/Christian books encourage, endorse, and support lying?
Barack Hussein Obama, which group ( or groups ) do you fall into? What really stands behind your moniker? It certainly wouldn’t be a stretch for most, with sound minds, to accurately deduce.
All six of our past presidents, Obama included, fall into the first category. People like Mayor Bloomberg fall into the second category.
It’s not fair to call Obama a Muslim. He’s not. He even eats pork. He’s not one of them. He’s merely a useful idiot dhimmi for them, just like all of our last several presidents from Carter to Bush 43.
I asked what really stands behind the moniker. I have no proof, but I know enough about him to seriously consider what he might be hiding, BTW, do you know how many”Muslims” eat pork, drink booze, and engage in homosexual practices? Obama is a useful idiot, but he was also educated in Indonesia. Do you know anything about his Indonesian schooling? There are so many other things that point to it. Regardless, at the very least, and by his own pronouncements, he is a serious sympathizer.
Father Zakaria Botros and Raymond Ibrahim were educated in Egypt. Does that make them Muslims? Obama couldn’t control where his mother worked and raised him.
Yes, Obama is very much a dhimmi. That is beyond a reasonable doubt. But having a nominally Muslim father from Kenya and having the middle name Hussein does not make one a Muslim, anymore so than having a name like Keith Ellison would make one a Christian.
Yes I agree that Muslim guys drink booze, sleep with non-Muslim women, and definitely practice homosexuality. That’s why I left out the fact that he drinks beer. But most of them don’t eat pork, but he does.
Jimmy Carter wrote a book that was actually endorsed by Osama Bin Laden. Reagan surrendered when Hezbollah bombed the marine barracks in Lebanon, and he also completely supported the Afghan mujahedeen and Pakistani ISI against the USSR. Bill Clinton bombed Slobodoan Milosevic to kingdom come and left the Christian Serbs at the mercy of the Muslim Bosnians and Albanians. In his post-presidency, he also called for the prosecution of the Danish Muhammad cartoonists. Why has nobody ever accused them of being Muslims? The answer is because they’re white and have Anglo names.
Unless you have absolute proof, you cannot say, with certainty, that he is not.( I know lots of Muslims who eat pork, BTW). Really, enough said. Personally, I have so much contempt for him, for so MANY different reasons, that the Muslim issue just adds up to one more strike.
You’re right, I can’t say for sure that he’s not. And I don’t. But you and so many others seem so sure that he is when the logic simply doesn’t add up.
BTW it’s not good to hate anyone. Hatred drives conservatives who proclaim Christ mad. You can hate the things people do without hating them as people.
Ok, this will be my last response to you. I have contempt for Obama’s apparent motives and his actions. “Contempt” ( aka, disdain) and “hatred” are not synonymous. Are you NOW claiming that you know ME, a complete stranger, expressing an opinion? lol Please feel free to have the last word. I stop when the “conversation” becomes tedious, pointless, and ridiculous.
Alright fair enough. Just remember one thing. You and I are on the same side. I came to Christ five years ago and I like to spend a good chunk of my time trying to share the Gospel with Muslims. Also, I completely agree with both you and Mr. Ibrahim that the Crusaders were nowhere near as barbaric or unjust in their cause as any Islamic Jihadist group, modern or medieval, and I’m disgusted that this president would say so. Even the Nazis were a tad less extreme than ISIS
You’re right that I can’t make assumptions about you, and I apologize for doing so. But let’s be honest. Many conservatives DO insist that he’s a Muslim, even though there is a good case to be made otherwise.
Outside of takfir methidology?
A few minor criticisms of this article.
First, more evidence is better when you’re trying to make a point. You wrote 23 paragraphs on this, and only provided a single quote to support what you claim is the President’s point of view.
Second, your quote is inaccurate. The President said “Lest we get on our high horse…” not “Unless we get on our high horse…”. In this context, “lest” and “unless” are literal antonyms. Quoting things inaccurately raises the possibility that you’re attempting to deliberately mislead your audience — especially when (see point one) it’s happening in the only quote you’re using as the basis for your article. Appearing to mislead your audience tends to undermine your credibility somewhat.
Third, nearly a quarter of the text you included in your quote was editorial additions. IE. Things which the President didn’t actually say. Editorial addition ought be avoided where possible — sometimes they’re necessary to provide context for a quote, context which exists in the original text but not in a way which can be concisely quoted directly, but they should always constitute as small a portion of the quoted text as possible.
Fourth, I searched the entire speech for “sex-slave”, “beheading”, “crucifixion” and “roasting humans” — the things mentioned in your editorial addition. None of these terms, nor related terms I could think identify, are used in the actual speech. It is therefore (see point three) inadvisable to use editorial additions in this case as it makes it appear that you’re deliberately misleading readers’ about the context and meaning of the quote as a whole. Once again (see point two), appearing to mislead your audience undermines your credibility somewhat.
Five, your entire article is about ISIS. The one quote (see point one) you provided, even with editorial additions (see point three and four), does not mention ISIS. This is somewhat problematic, as it makes it unclear exactly whether anyone actually holds the points of view you’re arguing against. Without a more pertinent quote, it’s difficult to know whether you’re arguing against a strawman of your own creation. Strawman arguments are (see point two and four) of course another way one can deceive his audience, and (as was mentioned in points two and four), appearing to deceive your audience undermines your credibility somewhat.
Other than that, great article. You do a fantastic job of disproving this thing no one actually believes. Now, if we can only find a way to convince the President, or other Democrats, to believe or say the things you’ve so effectively argued against, we can dust this off and make them look like fools.
I think it’s safe to say the readers that visit this site are familiar with this subject and do not require the entire speech laid out in front of them which is readily available to anyone. I listened to the speech and I don’t believe there is anything misleading about this article.
The misquote of the nonsensical use of the word “unless” doesn’t change the fact that Obama made a ridiculous and adolescent comparison of the 800 year old Crusades to present day Islamic terrorism 48 hours after the burning of a Jordanian fighter pilot. Also, the editorial addition in the quote is to emphasize the nasty details Obama is referring to but will not actually say. If the word “this” in the quote is not referring to Islamic violence such as beheadings, sex-slavery, crucifixion, and roasting humans that is happening today, then what is the president referring to? This is obvious and no one has been mislead.
The one with the credibility problem here is Barack Obama which has been demonstrated over and over again. Six years of Obama and you still don’t understand his views on Islam? What more do you need? If you can find inaccuracies or something that is just downright false in this article I would like to know but if all you have is a critique over petty nonsense, then don’t waste your time.
He overlooked mentioning the Salem witchcraft BBQ’s.
Did Obama try to justify the The ISIS cruelty to the crusade and inquisition that happened over a 1000 years ago? How sad!!
The Terrible Harm Done in the Name of The Good: I want you to understand why you are being regarded and determined as racists, bigots, suffering from a mental illness and importantly why you are not and never have been
http://citizensfirstasnau.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-terrible-harm-done-in-name-of-good.html
Racist, against which race? Bigoted because I reject Islam and its false prophet? Mental illness?
Obama was in India recently and said in a speech that Gandhi would have been shocked by communal violence in the mainly Hindu country against minorities. All Hindus are surprised as Muslim population in the country has grown more than 30 million in a decade and he says atrocities. Hindus have been targeted by Arabs over 800 years and yet history books in India teaches us that all Arab invaders were Heroes and Great whereas they destroyed temples and built mosques in all the areas in India. Even being a Hindu majority country it is hard for Hindu to say anything against a Muslim whereas Hate speeches by Muslim leaders in Mumbai and Hyderabad and mocking Hindu Gods and Christ is a day to day phenomenon here. West and even India portrays Muslims as convicts whereas the things are totally different here. Mosques shout out prayers five times in a day in loud speakers but temples can’t do the same thing as it hurts the sentiments of minority. Even our leaders just to garner political votes support them and show pro-Hindu rulers as Hitlers like what Obama said. He truly is anti Christ and anti Hindu.
Only if you no nothing about either one!
The leader of the Sunni jihadist has so-called evangelicals (50c31 state controlled worshippers) eating out of his hand. It is either GOD or mammon! Are you familiar with the meaning of the Islamic term tyiakka? Islam calls lying, cheating, stealing and murder worship! That’s the moon idol – black box in the desert they worship —
BTW, why didn’t someone ask ‘if we serve the same God (which we do NOT) then why did the Christians and Christian symbols have to be removed and/or covered up when the National church in Wash., D.C. was desecrated by the Muslims? They were there to DESECRATE the house of God! They had a mosque (storeage for arms, ammo and terrorist activities) right down the street. Why not go there? Because they are punching you right in the face Just like the ROE (rules of engagement) for OUR military were used to feed them as sausage through a meat grinder to his troops (not ours – if you get the drift —- it’s been that way since BEFORE 20th of January 2009! People have sold their souls for Saudi dollars….Beware the porn boyz in the pull-pit! They are leading millions straight to hell by misinterpreting the bible. Check out C-SPAN program of a few years ago and listen closely to Farakaan…and others…. LISTEN to the language about ‘our agenda’….. LISTEN! Better yet, read GOD’s WORD and SEE what’s happening now! If you are in a 503c1 ‘church’ you share in all that is being done… ISIS IS ISLAM! Obama is a Sunni Muslim helping to bring about the Ottoman Empire — and practices the Islamic doctrine of Tyikka (lie to the infidels) every time he opens his mouth wearing that ‘Allah is greatER’ ring — no god but allah – the moon idol – the BLACK desert box! The crusades were Christians defending their faith against the then ISIS Islamic jihad (jihad is their ‘religious’ duty)….the USA is filled with these cells as more pour through the border… gangs and gangs of murderous gangs … just awaiting a phone call … When you reject GOD (of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) Jesus Christ, you are on your own. Time is running out…the Globalist (eugenicists Bill Gates, et al)…..abortionists — all that is celebrating death is the Usurper’s creed….Islam is a death CULT! Remember who the initial deceiver was/is! There’s been no change! His hours are numbered and he knows it, erog the steroid actions. Remember his thwarted EMP attempt in Oct 2013? If you don’t know you need to get informed! This internet could end right now, along with all else! If you think the USA is not under attack NOW you are worse than an ostrich with its head in the sand. War was declared on the USA before 2009 (Shrub butchered the Constitution) but in 2009 it went epidemic! Read the Bible story about the 10 virgins – 5 wise and 5 foolish! See what happened! For the TRUE believers in JESUS CHRIST, God Bless and keep you…. and remember the words about the ‘falling away’ the apostasy…. it’s happening right now…maybe in your town! Go read/watch info by Robert Spencer about Islam! Bridget Gabriel, go watch Dr. James David Manning who has preached this truth since 2008 about the Usurper – long legged mack daddy… he even explains the meaning of that term.
Crusades? YES! Christians defended themselves against Islamic Jihadist ISIS aka Al Q, et al ad nauseum… Christians won then and the Usurper wants an excuse to declare martial law…. BE AWARE …. beware… Don’t deny the Crusades…they preserved civilization…against the barbariaans like the Usurper and hs troops – he knows what he’s doing….the BroHOOD is funneled $ via Odinga around the world and right here, right now USA is at war … with ISLAM! If you doubt that, and want them in your church, know that it is desecrated!!! And you don’t serve GOD by doing that! Get them OUT OF THE USA NOW—ALL of them and the stinking UN – full of Islamic BroHOOD… that big mothership of ALL ISLAM front orgs….they are KILLERS and they want YOU dead!
At some point Christians must rise up and start killing Muslims like they are killing Christians.
The desire is there I am sure, but if Christians do rise up it will have to be a war. There would be a conflict in their ideology if they do evil for evil. Do not get me wrong, I do not want a war. Having said that have no problem in wiping this Islam cancer off the face of the earth.
The Muslims are at war with Christianity. Just because the Christians are not fighting back does not mean we are not at war with them. Time to stop turning the other cheek.
Turning the other cheek is applied to personal conflict. War is war. I have no problem with Christians going to war to defend their homes and families.