What is really going on?

By Boris Shusteff

In an interview on Fox News on June 13th, Donald Trump said: “Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind – you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. There is something going on. It is inconceivable. There is something going on.”

Although Mr. Trump did not elaborate on what he meant by “something going on,” Jenna Johnson from The Washington Post, reporting on the interview apparently x-rayed his head. Figuring out what was in Trump’s mind, she came up with an article that was originally titled ‘Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shootings’, and later re-titled, as ‘Donald Trump seems to connect Obama to Orlando shooting.’

Evidently in order to dispel Ms. Johnson’s concerns regarding his involvement in Orlando’s despicable crime or perhaps in order to mollify Trump, after his meeting with his National Security Council on June 14th Barak Obama delivered a speech, in which for the first time in his presidency, he connected the words ‘radical’ and ‘Islam’ together.

Indignantly stating that he and his administration are wrongly criticized for not using the phrase “radical Islam,” he continued: “That‘s the key, they tell us. We can’t beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists. What exactly would using this label accomplish? … Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

Obama is right; if one calls the threat by a different name it will not go away. But if it is called by its proper name, perhaps it can be at least properly opposed? Perhaps, it would be easier for people to understand where the threat is coming from and what it is?

ISIS did not “pervert Islam to justify terrorism,” and it does not have a “twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions” as the President tries to convince the American people. ISIS preaches radical Islam. Last year the Islamic State (ISIS) released a document called “These Are Our Creeds and Ways”. As reported by MEMRI* on June 2nd, Professor Ella Landau-Tasseron, former Chair of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, had recently reviewed the document. Below is her conclusion:

“The document ‘These are our Creeds and Ways’ is a self-profile of the Islamic State, reflecting its basic theology and political ideology. ISIS declares that it shuns extremism, and in fact it adds nothing new to traditional Islamic dogmas except for making the return of the caliphate a mandatory article of faith. The document deals with topics that have occupied Muslim minds for generations, yet it also reflects modern and local conditions and phenomena. It is firmly based on Islamic sources, which it cites often, and much of its content is identical to Islamic conservative Hanbali [one of the four major schools of Islamic law] and neo-Hanbali doctrines.”

By pooling the wool over the eyes of the American people, striving to hide the religious component of the threat Obama is doing a disservice to the adherents of Islam. Perhaps, Mr. Obama was so strong in his beliefs that he was not infected by the anti­-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright while sitting in the pews of the Trinity church for more than twenty years. But how can he be sure that young American Muslims attracted by Islam would be able to withstand the insidious lures of radical Islam? Is he sure that they will be able to tell the difference between Sufism and Wahhabism, between Salafism and the traditional Sunni Islam if they are not firmly told and taught to be aware of the inherent dangers of the radical Islam? How will they know that they are attending a “virtuous” rather than an “evil” mosque?

In his speech Obama asked:  “Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance?” It might happen that the answer to these questions would not be politically correct if one looks into the results of a 2011 Study carried out by Professor Mordechai Kedar from Bar Ilan University’s Department of Arabic and Middle East Studies.  A “random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S.” showed that “51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts and 58% percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.”

Maybe it is time to start using common sense? We do not need “to start treating all Muslim Americans differently” but if according to the Clarion project, a non-profit group that describes itself as “dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism” there is “more than 80 radical mosques in the US,” at least these mosques should be put under a strict surveillance or simply closed.

Perhaps if the term “radical Islam” is defined as dangerous to America it is time to look more carefully at the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) identified as Muslim Brotherhood front group in the 2004 Holy Land trail. Every time the terror strikes on the American soil, a representative of CAIR rushes to perform the damage control to the image of Islam. But should we really trust an organization whose founder is Omar M. Ahmad? The San Ramon Valley Herald wrote in an article on July 4th, 1998 about his speech “before a packed crowd at the Flamingo Palace banquet urging Muslims not to shirk their duty of sharing the Islamic faith with those ‘who are on the wrong side.’” Appealing to Muslims Ahmad declared: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant”. “The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,” he said.

Describing an interview he conducted with Obama Nicholas Kristof wrote on March 7, 2007 in the New York Times: “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated … Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

It is a pity that Mr. Kristof is not versed in Arabic and was not curious enough to ask Obama to translate the Arabic verses into English. To remedy this, we will appeal to one of the utmost authority in Islam, the 14th century sheikh Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri the author of the Reliance of the Traveller – A classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law. He writes on page 114: “The words of the call to prayer are well known: Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. I testify there is no god but Allah. I testify there is no god but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Come to the prayer. Come to the prayer. Come to success. Come to success. Prayer is better than sleep. Prayer is better than sleep. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. There is no god but Allah.”

Pausing for just a moment to digest these lines, let the reader consider that these are the words that President of the United States Barak Hussein Obama considers to be “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset?”  What is really going on?

 

* http://www.memri.org/pdf/MEMRI_IA_A_Self-Profile_of_the_Islamic_State-The_Creedal_Document2.pdf

 

June 16, 2016.

———————————————————————————————————–

Boris Shusteff is an engineer. He is also a research associate with the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.

 

 

 

June 17, 2016 | 87 Comments »

Leave a Reply

37 Comments / 87 Comments

  1. yamit82 Said:

    Don’t eat red meat anymore out of principle more than for health reasons

    never trust a man that won[t eat red meat !!!! or smoke a cigar!!!!!!

    yamit82 Said:

    I would eat my dog

    Not bad smoked and BBQed.

    yamit82 Said:

    I love Lettuce

    Causes flatulence !!!!

  2. honeybee Said:

    @ yamit82:

    Chicken !!!!! Darlin, I am 100% pure corn-fed Prime Rib !!!!!!!

      

    Don’t eat red meat anymore out of principle more than for health reasons…. I won’t eat beef anymore than I would eat my dog…. I love Lettuce 🙂

  3. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Ask a Karaite Jew! They do not trust Oral Law, either.

    Why woulod I do that there might be 20-30 left in Israel and even less outside. They waged a good fight and lost hundreds of years ago just as all other deviant and sectarian movements claiming to be Jewish. I haven’t found a single Sadducee not even one in my lifetime have you? You really search in the absurd to top me and yu can’t ever do that. 🙂

  10. @ yamit82:

    Look ignorant christian, that’s why we have the oral Law to explain apparent anomalies and seeming contradictions. christian goyim are left to their own literal understanding and are left wanting in their understanding…. in other words ya are all too stupid to understand our book. You want to understand our book ask a knowledgeable Jew.

    Dr. Brown PhD, a Jewish man, with understanding above you:

    Look Ignorant Yamit, here is a Jewish man with a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKM0zJL-yjg

    Isaiah says: STICK TO THE WORD, not oral tradition.

    Isaiah 8:20
    20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    The Oral Law is not in keeping with Torah, nor Tenach.

    Stick to Scripture.

    So again, back to my point, the videos you use to slam Christianity, also slam Judaism. Be careful.

    As for honeybee: petard means bomb.

  11. @ yamit82:
    Look ignorant christian, that’s why we have the oral Law to explain apparent anomalies and seeming contradictions. christian goyim are left to their own literal understanding and are left wanting in their understanding…. in other words ya are all too stupid to understand our book. You want to understand our book ask a knowledgeable Jew. ?

    Ask a Karaite Jew! They do not trust Oral Law, either.

  15. bernard ross Said:

    famous case of Ruth would have driven the halakah conclusions as opposed to practical conclusions.

    The story of Ruth, a model proselyte, is fraught with oddities. Tanakh denigrates Jews often: the forefathers committed unsavory acts, Rachel stole idols, Moshe failed to circumcise his son, the Hebrews in Sinai rebelled against God time and again, and fell into idolatry as soon as they entered the Promised Land. In line with this exceedingly strange attitude, Ruth’s grandson David essentially murdered his military chief to take his wife, and was forbidden to build the Temple because he had shed too much blood in wars of expansion beyond the Promised Land. Even in biblical times, racketeering, though typical of Bedouin, hardly won David admiration among settled Jews, especially given his murderous behavior (1Sam25:22).

    Ruth’s father-in-law Elimelech left his people during a drought, though the climate could only have been worse in Moab (modern Jordan). Seeing that Naomi did not rush to meet her relatives upon their return, we can imagine her family had some serious problems in Israel.

    The problem with Ruth’s account is that the Torah explicitly forbids Jews to marry Moabites. According to the psalms, David had a lot of internal enemies, and it is perfectly plausible that they spat on his grave by proclaiming him a Moabitan bastard. The Sadducees, the Temple priests, did not include the Deuteronomy in the canon. They would accept that the prohibition against marrying the Moabites was inserted there specifically as a slap at David. The reasoning is decidedly odd: the Moabites are proscribed because they did not meet the invading Jews with bread.

    The Rabbis solved the problem by reading “Moabites” as “Moabite males.” That is nonsense, as Hebrew uses the male gender for neuter. Indeed, the rabbis try to explain why mitzri means all Egyptian people, while moavi means only Moabite males. They note that the Moabites were cursed because they did not meet the Jews with “bread and water.” According to the rabbis, men rather than women were expected to offer bread to strangers. But in Judges 4, Sisera asked Yael for water and she gave him milk. Ezra apparently did not know of the rabbinical view that Moabite women might be taken for wives when he broke the interfaith families (Ezra 9:2).

    Ruth never converted. Many believe that she did with her statement to Naomi, “Your people is my people, and your God is my God,” but later (2:10) she calls herself a foreigner. Why would Ruth have needed to convert before Naomi if she were supposed to convert ten years ago upon marrying Naomi’s son?

    The biblical story of Ruth is way too twisted to pass the Occam Razor test.

  21. @ honeybee:
    they know for sure that at least one parent is jewish whereas we could in the past never be sure if the jewish father was indeed the father…. the mother never has that problem. It appears like a practical contemporary solution that was promulgated as halakah. However, now we have DNA. I would have thought that the famous case of Ruth would have driven the halakah conclusions as opposed to practical conclusions.

  23. @ CuriousAmerican:

    Look ignorant christian, that’s why we have the oral Law to explain apparent anomalies and seeming contradictions. christian goyim are left to their own literal understanding and are left wanting in their understanding…. in other words ya are all too stupid to understand our book. You want to understand our book ask a knowledgeable Jew. 😛

  25. bernard ross Said:

    which is likely the real reason for the “halakah” regarding being a Jew through the mother only…. as opposed to a ruling based on Ruth.

    Since Jewish women, throughout history, have subject to sexual assault, The “Halachah” protects the children born of a Jewish mother.

  29. honeybee Said:

    His descendants ,” shall be as numerous as Stars in the Sky”.

    but they will not remember him well…. they were just “a flash in the pan”

  30. bernard ross Said:

    Looks like this math prof is not a genius adding up the figures: His kids with his wife will probably inherit nothing after all the suits.

    His descendants ,” shall be as numerous as Stars in the Sky”.

  32. sorry folks, cant find chit chat, so here goes a lighter moment

    Wife of Jewish sperm donor who has sired 22 kids is ‘livid’

    Ari Nagel’s wife said to be ‘devastated’ by news he provides sperm via intercourse or in a cup to women looking to have a baby without using sperm banks

    He has successfully been sued for child support five times and told the Post that half of his paycheck is garnished for child support. He told the newspaper that the women all promise in advance that they won’t sue.

    He has kids in Florida, Illinois, Virginia, Connecticut and Israel,……
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-sperm-donor-who-sired-22-kids-is-a-married-man/?

    Looks like this math prof is not a genius adding up the figures: His kids with his wife will probably inherit nothing after all the suits.

  33. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 38% of Likely U.S. Voters have a favorable opinion of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, with 19% who view her Very Favorably. But just 37% have a favorable one of her likely Republican opponent, Donald Trump. That includes 16% who view the billionaire businessman Very Favorably.

    Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 59%, while 61% say the same of Trump. This includes Very Unfavorables of 49% and 48% respectively http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_trump_still_battle_high_unfavorables

  34. What’s really going on here is that 25% of the USA voters are still undecided, while most voters size up Clinton as untrustworthy but presidential, and rate Trump as rough but fully believable.

    Trump will all but destroy her the first time they debate, alone on the stage, before the largest television audience in history, and no place to run to when the shit hits the fan.

    Among the characteristics I liked about Harry Truman was his bluntness, courage, and honesty. I was a 14-year-old in November 1948, when “give ’em hell” Harry overcame Dewey, the GOP phony, along with Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats, and Henry A Wallace’s hard-core leftists. So this national election, 68 years later, is like a return of the American spirit.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  35. Nice try, Yamit.

    But Isa 53:6 says. — All we like sheep have gone astray

    So none are righteous

    Yet, Tenach says Job and Noah were righteous (see above)

    Does Tenach and Torah fail, too?