Tuesday, May 13, 2008

NY TIMES PUBLISHES WIERD ANTI-OBAMA PIECE

RICHARD SILVERSTEIN, TIKUN OLAM Edward Luttwak, one of Ronald Reagan's original cold warriors, has channeled Daniel Pipes in the N.Y. Times op-ed section today, claiming preposterously that a President Obama will be in danger because Islamists will view his as a Muslim apostate and try to kill him. . .

Of course, no Islamist has ever uttered a word about Obama's alleged apostasy let alone advocated killing him nor does Luttwak claim as such. In fact, the McCain campaign has pounced on an endorsement from a Hamas spokesperson (so much for Islamists wanting to kill Obama). . . .

Luttwak once again refers to Obama's so-called "Muslim heritage,"which is non-existent. The author's justification? No matter how Obama defines himself, Muslims define him as Muslim: As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood.

So "universally understood" in fact, that I have never heard a genuine Muslim advance this concept. Another distortion of Islam inherent in this statement is that there is a unitary "universal standard" of Muslim belief. Besides, this notion that Obama is Muslim despite the fact that he is a believing Christian flies in the face of a sacred American tradition-that in this land of freedom and self-expression we define our own identity and refuse to allow others to do this for us.

I find it ironic that those excellent imams Pipes and Luttwak (I wonder where they could've earned those advanced degrees in Islamic theology?) have been telling Americans how Muslims will view Obama, while no Muslim has ever advanced the views they espouse. Could it be that their knowledge of modern Islam is deficient or that in their need to smear both Islam and Obama they have gone off the deep end?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home