Obama to Terrorists: Have a New York Radical Muslim Platform

Posted on November 13, 2009

koranby SamHenry

With the announcement today that the 9/11 terrorist planners will be tried in a civil court in New York City and not before a military tribunal elsewhere, the wound to this nation’s soul has been reopened.  And for the people of New York city still recovering from the flyover of Air Force One for a photo-op, this is an unthinkable move.

It is unfortunate that Mayor Bloomberg thinks this is a good move. These men do not DESERVE to return to these civilized shores for equal treatment under the law. Would they accord the same us under Sharia law?

Not only will New York City become a platform for their ideas and ideals, it will again bring up the subject of Sharia law.  Interpretation of the Koran is complex and this is not the post for discussion of it.

What IS needed instead of a “beer” summit or an “unemployment summit” is an Islamic cultural summit.  Contrary to what Vice-President Gore and others have said, not all of us are comfortable with SOME Muslims among us.

Look what is happening in Europe. Radical Muslims in Britain are demanding that Sharia law become the law of the land.  The Arch Bishop of Canterbury has argued a place must be made for it.

We have a situation here that demands to be diffused. Michigan has the largest number of Muslims in the US in Detroit. A couple of weeks ago an armed radical tried to take over the state of Michigan!  Does this sound ridiculous?  Perhaps but this was the way Pakistan became a country.  It was formerly the Muslim portion of northern India.

Never before in our history have we had immigrants who have brought a religion that comes with its own legal system so opposed to the concepts in the Christian and Jewish religious laws that have influenced our law.  There are those that interpret the Koran in such a way that it precludes Muslims tolerating non-Muslims.  Of course, the jihadists are the most extreme example of this.

Let me share with you a site with good credentials that has many references to help educate us more than most of us are on the above issues.


And finally, an excellent article from Forbes on what we would NOT achieve in accommodating radical Muslims:

Obama Can’t Fix The Muslim World

Melik Kaylan, 06.02.09, 12:01 AM EDT

”Respegnity” begins at home.


As the warm weather shrinks the square footage of clothing on female limbs all over New York, the homme moyen sensuel walking the streets can only feel gratitude. That this spontaneous annual pageant kicks in on schedule without prompting gladdens the eye, restores ones faith in the seasons and nature’s order. The more high minded of us might think, “so this is what Renaissance master Agnolo Bronzino had in mind with all that glowing flesh on canvas, or the pre-Raphaelite painter John Waterhouse intended to convey in his Hylas and the Nymphs”: a kind of cornucopia effect, a sense of bounty and profusion.

Conversely, anyone who visits a strictly Islamic country around this time of year feels an immediate pang of deprivation; in place of the visual feast there are resentful, dour streets and uneasy severity. No good can come of this, one thinks–nature in human form continually miser’d and muzzled.

In an ideal world, President Obama might point out such concerns in his upcoming reconciliation-with-Islam speech on Thursday at Cairo University. He might say from the podium, “Hey, where’re all the babes?” But no, it will be as always and ever about respect and dignity, dignity and respect, or some blurry amalgam of the two.

Call it respegnity. It will be about that because, although the U.S. can do whatever it does in the Muslim world more competently, the U.S. can never straighten out the pretzelized politics of the region. The Muslims themselves cannot, have not been able to since the advent of the Prophet, except by force, and then only temporarily. Hence the endless roll call of rampant ids in Islamic history: Abbasids, Fatimids, Timurids, Safavids, Aghlabids, Almoravids, Ayyubids and Ghaznavids, to name a few–and that’s without the dynasties that end id-lessly such as Moguls, Ottomans, Seljuks and the like.

None of which means Muslims cannot live in moderate democracies. But they cannot do so as maximalist Muslims with religion uppermost in their identity, taking precedence over principles of habeas corpus, free speech, gender equality, political pluralism and the like. President Obama’s habit of addressing Muslims as a bloc only encourages that aspirational identity rooted in notions of a global umma. Meanwhile, he also feeds the delusion that the U.S. can solve the problems of Muslims with helpful policies.

According to various individuals interviewed in a June 1 AP report headlined “Muslims Want Tangible Change on Mideast From Obama,” President Obama needs to back his words with actions for Muslims to change their opinions of the U.S.. Such actions include pushing the two-state solution for Palestine, halting Israeli settlements, withdrawing from Iraq and so on. Seems fair, on the face of it.

Let us imagine that the U.S. did all of that and more. Let us imagine that Israel never existed; that the U.S. ceased to shore up the Ibn Sauds and other Gulf dynasties and stopped buying their oil; that it withdrew from Afghanistan; kicked Turkey out of NATO; switched overnight to solar power and coal; and abandoned its political influence in the Muslim world altogether.

What would happen? A whole new unleashing of ids, that’s what. Possibly beginning with Bin Ladenids. And in order to fudge the reality of a dysfunctional system based on sharia, one that fails to deliver contentment, they would invade each other, then they would invade the rest of us. Let us remember that Osama and his kind frequently denounce democracy as a heretical Western notion designed to subvert Islam and keep it subdued. It’s no good saying that most Muslim countries would not opt for jihad, sharia or Osama–it only takes a handful of jihadis to spread chaos through car and suicide bombings, which in turn trigger police state reprisals, which lead to Muslim Brotherhoods.

Respegnity begins at home. One could argue that, on the whole, Muslims get more respegnity in Western lands than they do at home because rule of law protects them from despotism and bellicose fellow Muslims. Codified traditions of free speech allow Muslims to ask for it–traditions extremists would prefer to muzzle in countries like Holland and Denmark, where free speech allowed caricatures of the Prophet to be published. It’s as simple as this: If you do not have the freedom to ridicule religious figures, one day you will not have the freedom of speech to profess your own faith. If you do not see the causality of that, you do not deserve respegnity.

Some would say that polemics like mine justified paternalistic dominance over less-developed populations in the past. They can’t run their own affairs, poor chaps, so we must do it for them, the argument goes. Such a sub-narrative–not so sub- in the Muslim world’s mind–is precisely what President Obama is trying to overcome with his respect speeches. But as Bernard Lewis has pointed out in various media, the West withdrew from empire some decades ago; since then most non-Muslim developing countries have flourished and stopped blaming their woes on the U.S. Women participate in the political and economic life of non-Muslim societies, he says, and that makes all the difference.

The U.S. is about to withdraw from Iraq. What if it also withdraws from Afghanistan and from helping Pakistan? How will the umma conduct itself and how much happier will it be? I mean by this no apology for paternalism or unnecessary foreign adventures–merely that Islam’s woes derive not from the interference of non-believers, but from Islam’s own beginnings and history since then.

Here is a man-on-the-street encounter in Egypt quoted in the AP article: “‘When someone talks to me with dignity and respect, then I will feel I could follow him,’ said 19-year-old Mustafa Ragab. He spoke after Friday prayers at a Cairo mosque.” One wants to say to Mustafa that dignity and respect, to have any meaning, are not bestowed but earned. To the extent that you seek them exclusively through your identity as one of the faithful, you need to show how your faith on balance delivers real happiness, prosperity and progress to male and female adherents alike, en masse, and even real benefits to the world beyond–not in some omnipotent past or triumphant future, but in the complicated, irritatingly non-medieval conditions of the present.

You might even have to show that it does all these things as well as other faiths (or non-faiths). You have had leaders with Muslim names and copious flows of respegnity for centuries–look where it has got you. It’s no good pointing to flaws and conflicts in the Christian world–there is no such vast unitary body, not in the way you would want Islam to be. And no huddled masses of Christians yearning to emigrate to the Muslim world. And none looking for respegnity from visiting Muslim leaders in order to follow them. But if that’s what you want, then the Obamanid era is perfect for you. It will come and go like the other ids, and Muslims will be none the happier in the long run.

Melik Kaylan, a writer based in New York, writes a weekly column for Forbes.com. His story “Georgia In The Time of Misha” is featured in The Best American Travel Writing 2008.


VotingFemale Speaks! – Obama will Torture New Yorkers; Will Try 911 Terrorist War Fighters as common criminals; sets up their walking free on basis of treatment as war fighters

Hot Air – Webb: Criminal trials for 9/11 terrorists a bad idea

Frugal-Cafe – DHS Needs to Include Muslim Extremists As Dangers & Remove Military Vets from Terrorist Report

Fire Andrea Mitchell – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four the four other GITMO detainees transfered to New York have been granted full rights and protection under the U.S. Constitution.