Gaffney’s contradictory message on Islam, cont.

Not only is B.H. Obama the first Muslim president, in the same sense that W.J. Clinton was the first black president, but, argues Frank Gaffney, he may well actually be a Muslim. After giving evidence from Obama’s words and background that supports that idea, Gaffney continues:

In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the [Cairo] Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah—notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood—to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.

Gaffney ends on this point:

Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces—and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

Diana West comments on Gaffney’s column:

Here, I think, is my only quibble. What is alarming about the Islamic-style presidency is not its impact on “peaceful, tolerant American Muslims.” First of all, if such Muslims are genuinely “peaceful” and “tolerant,” Obama’s tilt to sharia-adherents will have no impact on them whatsover; they would already be repulsed by such ideological enemies of freedom and liberty to the point of withstanding any amount of presidential flim flam. Either way, though, the impact on American Muslims is the last thing I’m worried about. What alarms me instead—terrifies me—is the possibly irreparable harm four years (please, only four years) this Islamic alignment will do to this country and the wider Western world.

I would say that that’s more than a quibble. For Gaffney to argue forcefully, as he does in this article, that the President of the United State identifies with Islam and is a supporter of Islam’s sharia program, and then turn around and say that what is most alarming about Obama’s adherence to Islam is its possible demoralizing impact on the supposed moderate Muslims, rather than its demoralizing impact on America and the West, shows that for all his apparently increased realism about the Islamic threat in the last couple of years, Gaffney remains lost in the “total disconnect on Islam” for which I criticized him in 2007. Namely, Gaffney on one hand recognizes the sharia nature of Islam, while, on the other hand, he imagines that the “moderate” Muslims are a serious force that can resist this real Islam and “fix” Islam. A disciple of the hopelessly confused and contradictory Daniel Pipes, who says that “radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution,” Gaffney goes on forever absurdly hoping that Muslims will protect us from Islam, rather than telling us that we must protect ourselves from Islam.

Islam critics who are unable to state without equivocation that Islam itself is the problem leave us helpless before the Islam threat.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Nachman writes:

I think this conclusion of yours about Gaffney ..

“Islam critics who are unable to state without equivocation that Islam itself is the problem leave us helpless before the Islam threat.”

is good because you simply state an opinion without tearing the “criticizee” a new one, which is what I’m used to you doing.

LA replies:

What? Am I mellowing?

* * *

LA writes:

To be fair to Gaffney, he doesn’t say that the only problem stemming from Obama’s speech is the effect on the moderates; he mentions the effect on us as well. However, he puts the latter concern in second place and uses wording that further vitiates its importance. Let’s look at the passage again:

What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces—and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

Gaffney is primarily worried that Obama’s expressed solidarity with sharia proponents will put increased pressure on the moderate Muslims to submit to sharia; and that is the gravamen of my above criticism of him. He is secondarily worried that Obama’s expressed solidarity with sharia proponents will “heighten expectations” that we non-Muslims will also submit. But who cares about these “expectations”? Why do some supposed “expectations” that we may submit to the spread of sharia worry Gaffney, rather than our actually submitting to the spread of sharia as a direct result of Obama’s embrace of Islam? I think Gaffney put the prospect of our submitting to Islam in the indirect way he put it, because if he had stated the problem directly, it would have become inescpably clear that the only alternative to our submitting to Islam is our outlawing or expelling Islam. And that, needless to say, is something the moderate Muslims cannot do for us.

We are alone, but not in the way Mark Steyn imagines. There are no “moderate Muslims,” no “conservative minorities,” who can save us. We must save ourselves.

* * *

Steven H. writes:

I do not consider Obama to be a Christian. He certainly is supportive of Islamic goals. Having said that, I do believe that it is at least possible that Obama could be a Muslim, however, I must take exception to one of Gaffney’s main points to support this possibility. Muslims believe that Jesus ascended into Heaven and is not dead nor was he crucified. Gaffney apparently assumes that Muslims think Jesus is dead. They do not. They think that he will upon his return in the end times help to kill all Christians in the name of Allah. What do you expect from the “prophet”?

Howard Sutherland writes:

You are right. Gaffney’s emphasis is on the wrong people. We don’t actually have much power over what Moslems, peaceful and tolerant or otherwise, think about Islam. The people who do are people like imams of al-Azhar, the ayatollahs of Iran and other such worthies who actually have some standing to speak authoritatively about what Moslems are supposed to believe. Their message is not congenial to our ears, but it has credibility among their faithful.

If I had written Gaffney’s column, I think I would have phrased it this way: “What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on Americans to accept such forces as reasonable allies and partners—and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of the world will do so as well. By being, effectively, America’s first Moslem president, Obama makes reasonable opposition to Islam and its infiltration of the West, including America, much more difficult. And that, I strongly suspect, is exactly what he intends.” HRS

N. writes:

In discussing the confusion of Frank Gaffney you write: “Gaffney goes on forever absurdly hoping that Muslims will protect us from Islam, rather than telling us that we must protect ourselves from Islam.”

Question: What is the correct name for someone who hopes to be protected from Sharia Islam by Moslems?

Answer: A dhimmi. Think about it, and you see this is an essential quality of dhimmis. They will not, indeed cannot protect themselves from Islam, because to do so violates the treaty of submission. Dhimmis must rely on Moslems to restrain other Moslems, and therefore protect the dhimmis from the worst of Islam.

It is important that we call things by right names. Gaffney at this time has the mindset of a dhimmi, and therefore cannot be expected to see his way clear to self defense against Islam.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2009 10:49 PM | Send