J’ai travaillé sur l’URSS, c’était le même mécanisme de peur. Le seul moyen de lutter contre la censure parmi les dissidents était que tout le monde signe les pétitions. Le Mur est tombé quand les gens ont cessé d’avoir peur. Dès que vous intériorisez la peur, c’est fini. Je crains que cela se produise en Occident face aux radicaux islamistes. La réalité est que nous avons intériorisé la fatwa lancée contre Salman Rushdie pour ses Versets sataniques. Il n’existe pas de loi contre le blasphème en Occident, mais nous avons intériorisé la peur d’une loi qui n’existe pas. (…) Je pensais que notre journal pourrait gagner ce combat.» Oui, nous n’avons pas publié les caricatures après les attaques, c’est grave et triste. Mais je peux comprendre le rédacteur en chef, après ce que je vis depuis neuf ans. Il pense à la sécurité de ses journalistes. Au moins, nous sommes honnêtes. Nous avons publié un éditorial titré «La violence marche». Nous reconnaissons que nous nous soumettons à l’autocensure. L’épée est plus forte que le stylo. Il y a neuf ans, je pensais que c’était l’inverse. Je pensais que notre journal pourrait gagner ce combat. Mais je sais maintenant que nous avons besoin de beaucoup plus de soutien populaire. Je suis très heureux de cette mobilisation. Mais je reste circonspect, car une manifestation ne compte pas à long terme. Ce qui compte, ce sont les décisions au quotidien de chaque journal. Quand Theo Van Gogh a été tué par un extrémiste musulman en 2004, il y a eu une vague de soutien qui s’est essoufflée. On a vu au contraire apparaître, aux Pays-Bas, une pression pour renforcer «les lois contre la propagation d’un discours de haine». Le ministre de la Culture a même dit si que si on avait eu des lois semblables, Theo Van Gogh serait en vie! Sous-entendu, c’était sa faute (…) Cette culture de la défense des offensés est devenue centrale dans les cercles académiques américains. Elle est très dangereuse, car elle détruit la distinction fondamentale, depuis les Lumières, entre le mot et l’action. Elle affirme que dire quelque chose d’offensant est aussi grave que commettre un crime violent. Alors qu’une caricature, c’est ce qu’il y a de plus civilisé et pacifique! Cette érosion de la distinction entre mots et actes sape la liberté de parole. Elle nous rapproche des dictatures. Flemming Rose
Nous aurions dû envoyer quelqu’un du plus haut niveau. Josh Earnest (porte-parole de l’exécutif américain)
More than a million people turned out. More than 40 presidents and prime ministers were there. It was, as the New York Times reported, “the most striking show of solidarity in the West against the threat of Islamic extremism since the Sept. 11 attacks.” But President Obama did not go to Paris. Neither did Joe Biden. Or John Kerry. Attorney General Eric Holder was in the city but he didn’t go to the rally either. There is a visceral reaction, of course. What could Barack Obama have been thinking? How could he not go and show support to a friend who had been attacked? The official explanation is that there were concerns about security and how they would distract from the event. But other world leaders showed up and they managed to figure out a way around the security issues. The (NY) Daily News ran a Front Page headline, sending President Obama a message in type the size of the Eiffel Tower: “You let the world down” The (UK) Daily Mail headline read, “America snubs historic Paris rally” Is it unreasonable to wonder if the President was a no-show precisely because it wasn’t a rally against extremism in general, but against Islamic extremism in particular? Islamic terrorism may be the most challenging issue of our time, but Barack Obama can’t bring himself to utter those two words, side by side. For a while, he wouldn’t even call terrorism … terrorism. Imagine if FDR refused to talk about the Nazi menace but instead tiptoed around the subject and talked instead about “extremism.” Wouldn’t that seem … odd? (…) Perhaps the president is concerned that he would be offending moderate Muslims if he put the name of their religion alongside the word “terrorism.” But if they’re truly moderate, they’re already offended – by the actions of the terrorists. Or perhaps he’s caving to Muslim civil rights groups in America, or doesn’t want to rile the volatile Arab Street abroad. Whether the president understands it or not, his attempt to avoid being polarizing is having the opposite effect. (…) Words matter. But so does reality, which cannot be changed simply because the leader of the free world refuses to call Islamic terrorism by its name. Bernard Goldberg
There is a long history of this White House being very, very reluctant to talk about terrorism and to call something terrorism. What they haven’t done is call it Islamic terrorism. John Kerry’s remarks, which were great about showing solidarity with France, and by all means let’s show solidarity with France and let’s condemn terrorist attacks, but he didn’t use the word Islam or Muslim once (…) These acts were done by specific people with a specific ideology, and this White House is still incredibly gun shy, no pun intended, about calling any attention to the fact that the people we’re at war with aren’t just generic extremists off the shelf, but they’re a specific ideology with a specific religious orientation. And President Obama won’t even call ISIS Islamic. Jonah Goldberg
President Barack Obama and other top members of his administration have snubbed a historic rally in Paris today that brought together more than 40 world leaders from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even Russia. ‘France is our oldest ally,’ Obama said during a speech Friday in Tennessee. ‘I want the people of France to know that the United States stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.’ But he wasn’t standing in Paris as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas put aside their differences and linked arms. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov made the same unifying gesture in the march down the Place de la Concorde in defiance of the Islamist terror attacks that rocked the city last week. According to an administration official, President Obama spent part of his Sunday afternoon watching a National Football League game on television. Both games were broadcast hours after the march. Heads of state from every major European power, including British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, joined French President Francois Hollande. But the U.S.A. was M.I.A. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden remained in Washington, despite having no events on their public schedules Sunday. Secretary of State John Kerry was a world away in India, on a pre-planned trip. Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris for a terrorism summit held on the march’s sidelines, but he slipped away and made appearances on four American morning television talk shows just as the incredible rally was starting. The US was represented at the march only by Jane Hartley, the American ambassador to France who is unrecognizable to most Americans, let alone the rest of the world. Daily Mail
Reporters sans frontières (RSF) se félicite de la présence de nombreux chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement étrangers lors du rassemblement du dimanche 11 janvier en hommage aux victimes des attentats, mais s’indigne de la présence de représentants de pays répressifs de la liberté de l’information. Au nom de quoi les représentants de régimes prédateurs de la liberté de la presse viennent-ils défiler à Paris en hommage à un journal qui a toujours défendu la conception la plus haute de la liberté d’expression ? Reporters sans frontières (RSF) s’indigne de la présence à la “marche républicaine” à Paris de dirigeants de pays dans lesquels les journalistes et les blogueurs sont systématiquement brimés, tels l’Egypte, la Russie, la Turquie, l’Algérie et les Emirats arabes unis. Au Classement mondial de la liberté de la presse publié par RSF, ces pays sont respectivement 159e, 148e, 154e, 121e et 118e sur 180.(…) Les autorités ont annoncé la présence du Premier ministre turc Ahmet Davutoglu, des ministres des Affaires étrangères égyptien et russe, Sameh Choukry et Sergueï Lavrov, des ministres des Affaires étrangères d’Algérie et des Emirats arabes unis, Ramtane Lamamra et cheikh Abdallah ben Zayed Al-Nahyane, et du président gabonais Ali Bongo. Reporters sans frontières
Selon les standards du Times, nous ne publions pas d’images ou d’autres matériaux offensant délibérément les sensibilités religieuses. Après concertation, les journalistes du Times ont décidé que décrire les caricatures en question donnerait suffisamment d’informations pour comprendre l’histoire. NYT
Many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well. (…) But you understand; everything is seen from different perspectives. Tim Wilcox (BBC)
Personne ne souffre davantage de tout ça que le peuple palestinien. Barack Hussein Obama (Iowa, 27 avril 2007)
Mon père était originaire du Kenya, et beaucoup de gens dans son village étaient musulmans. Il ne pratiquait pas l’islam. La vérité est qu’il n’était pas très religieux. Il a rencontré ma mère. Ma mère était une chrétienne originaire du Kansas, et ils se marièrent puis divorcèrent. Je fus élevé par ma mère. Aussi j’ai toujours été chrétien. Le seul lien que j’ai eu avec l’islam est que mon grand-père du côté de mon père venait de ce pays. Mais je n’ai jamais pratiqué l’islam. Pendant un certain temps, j’ai vécu en Indonésie parce que ma mère enseignait là-bas. Et c’est un pays musulman. Et je suis allé à l’école. Mais je ne pratiquais pas. Mais je crois que cela m’a permis de comprendre comment pensaient ces gens, qui partagent en partie ma façon de voir, et cela revient à dire que nous pouvons instaurer de meilleurs rapports avec le Moyen-Orient ; cela contribuerait à nous rendre plus assurés si nous pouvons comprendre comment ils pensent sur certains sujets. Barack Hussein Obama (Oskaloosa, Iowa, décembre 20007)
Je n’ai jamais été musulman. (…) à part mon nom et le fait d’avoir vécu dans une population musulmane pendant quatre ans étant enfant [Indonésie, 1967-1971], je n’ai que très peu de lien avec la religion islamique. Barack Hussein Obama (février 2008)
Nous cherchons à ouvrir un nouveau chemin en direction du monde musulman, fondé sur l’intérêt mutuel et le respect mutuel. (…) Nous sommes une nation de chrétiens, de musulmans, de juifs, d’hindous et de non croyants. Barack Hussein Obama (discours d’investiture, le 20 janvier 2009)
… une nation de musulmans, de chrétiens et de juifs … Barack Hussein Obama (Entretien à la télévision saoudienne Al-Arabiya, 27 janvier, 2009)
Nous exprimerons notre appréciation profonde de la foi musulmane qui a tant fait au long des siècles pour améliorer le monde, y compris mon propre pays. Barack Hussein Obama (Ankara, avril 2009)
Les Etats-Unis et le monde occidental doivent apprendre à mieux connaître l’islam. D’ailleurs, si l’on compte le nombre d’Américains musulmans, on voit que les Etats-Unis sont l’un des plus grands pays musulmans de la planète. Barack Hussein Obama (entretien pour Canal +, le 2 juin 2009)
Salamm aleïkoum (…) Comme le dit le Saint Coran, « Crains Dieu et dis toujours la vérité ». (…) Je suis chrétien, mais mon père était issu d’une famille kényane qui compte des générations de musulmans. Enfant, j’ai passé plusieurs années en Indonésie où j’ai entendu l’appel à la prière (azan) à l’aube et au crépuscule. Jeune homme, j’ai travaillé dans des quartiers de Chicago où j’ai côtoyé beaucoup de gens qui trouvaient la dignité et la paix dans leur foi musulmane. Barack Hussein Obama (Prêche du Caire)
En tant que citoyen, en tant que président, je crois que les musulmans ont autant le droit de pratiquer leur religion que quiconque dans ce pays. Cela inclut le droit de construire un lieu de culte et un centre socio-culturel sur un terrain privé dans le lower Manhattan, en respect des lois et décrets locaux. Nous sommes en Amérique. Notre engagement en faveur de la liberté de religion doit être inébranlable. Barack Hussein Obama
L’avenir ne doit pas appartenir à ceux qui calomnient le prophète de l’Islam. Barack Obama (siège de l’ONU, New York, 26.09.12)
The … efforts that were made to give … Osama Bin Laden … an appropriate burial … following Islamic … precepts and traditions … were considerable. (long pause) However, I would also say that … uh … there is nothing, um… The — the respect that was shown to him … and his body … uh … was far greater than the respect that Osama Bin Laden showed to … the victims on 9/11 … or any of his other victims. … Uh, and that’s because that’s who we are. … uh… So we feel very comfortable with the fact that we, uhh … took … uh … extraordinary measures to — to show that respect … uh … to the traditions of the Islamic faith. Jay Carney (White House Press Secretary, May 2011)
We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad. And, obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory. Jay Carney (2012)
Well, I’m firmly on the side of freedom of speech and in our country, defense of the First Amendment. There is no question that a publication like this has every right to publish images like this, to satirize anything and anyone, and there’s never a justification, as I went on to say from the podium back when I was press secretary, there’s never justification for violence in response to being offended by free speech. But I think that we also have to acknowledge that some of these representations in this magazine and elsewhere, including, remember in the video produced in the United States, that represented Muhammad and was offensive to many Muslims that there are risks associated with that and that that kind of offensive representation could be provocative. But I think it’s important especially after what happened in Paris to make it clear that there’s never justification for violence. Jay Carney (2015)
Au sénat de l’état d’Illinois, le sénateur Obama a voté 130 fois ‘present’. Ce n’est pas oui , ce n’est pas non. C’est peut-être. (…) Un président ne peut pas voter ‘présent’. Un président ne peut pas choisir les défis qu’il ou elle décidera de relever. Hillary Rodham Clinton (21 janvier, 2008)
Mr. Obama’s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. (…) An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy. (…) In other present votes, Mr. Obama, who also taught law at the University of Chicago while in the State Senate, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote. Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate. In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s. “I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.” Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed, the campaign said, that the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it. Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. NYT
L’ironie est maintenant évidente: George W. Bush comme force pour l’émancipation des terres musulmanes et Barack Hussein Obama en messager des bonnes vieilles habitudes. Ainsi c’est le plouc qui porte au monde le message que les musulmans et les Arabes n’ont pas la tyrannie dans leur ADN et l’homme aux fragments musulmans, kenyans et indonésiens dans sa propre vie et son identité qui annonce son acceptation de l’ordre établi. Mr. Obama pourrait encore reconnaître l’impact révolutionnaire de la diplomatie de son prédecesseur mais jusqu’à présent il s’est refusé à le faire. (…) Son soutien au » processus de paix » est un retour à la diplomatie stérile des années Clinton, avec sa croyance que le terrorisme prend sa source dans les revendications des Palestiniens. M. Obama et ses conseillers se sont gardés d’affirmer que le terrorisme a disparu, mais il y a un message indubitable donné par eux que nous pouvons retourner à nos propres affaires, que Wall Street est plus mortel et dangereux que la fameuse « rue arabo-musulmane ». Fouad Ajami
Bizarrement, je pense qu’Obama joue la montre et espère que les manifestants seront écrasés avant que la honte d’avoir fermé les yeux – parfois par son silence et parfois par ses banalités d’équivalence morale – sur la brutale théocratie iranienne ne devienne trop lourde, même pour lui, à supporter. (…) Personne ne demande qu’on envoie la cavalerie ou l’aviation mais juste un certain encouragement moral pour ne pas inciter des gens à descendre dans la rue et puis les abandonner à leur sort au moment où ils ont le plus besoin de notre soutien (comme en Hongrie ou pour les Chiites à Bagdad en 1991), mais à la place accorder notre reconnaissance à ceux qui d’eux-mêmes ont déjà pris cette décision dangereuse et méritent notre admiration en termes bien plus forts que ce que nous avons jusqu’ici vu de la Maison Blanche. (…) Cette crainte d’offenser des théocrates sanguinaires qui soutiennent le terrorisme est évidemment tout à fait ahurissante: un président de l’espoir et du changement se révèle faible et cynique à un moment critique où les pires racailles de la Corée du Nord au Venezuela nous observent attentivement et tentent d’évaluer nos capacités de réaction. Victor Davis Hanson
Les drones américains ont liquidé plus de monde que le nombre total des détenus de Guantanamo. Pouvons nous être certains qu’il n’y avait parmi eux aucun cas d’erreurs sur la personne ou de morts innocentes ? Les prisonniers de Guantanamo avaient au moins une chance d’établir leur identité, d’être examinés par un Comité de surveillance et, dans la plupart des cas, d’être relâchés. Ceux qui restent à Guantanamo ont été contrôlés et, finalement, devront faire face à une forme quelconque de procédure judiciaire. Ceux qui ont été tués par des frappes de drones, quels qu’ils aient été, ont disparu. Un point c’est tout. Kurt Volker
Obama demande pardon pour les faits et gestes de l’Amérique, son passé, son présent et le reste, il s’excuse de tout. Les relations dégradées avec la Russie, le manque de respect pour l’Islam, les mauvais rapports avec l’Iran, les bisbilles avec l’Europe, le manque d’adulation pour Fidel Castro, tout lui est bon pour battre la coulpe de l’Amérique. Plus encore, il célèbre la contribution (totalement inexistante) de l’Islam à l’essor de l’Amérique, et il se fend d’une révérence au sanglant et sectaire roi d’Arabie, l’Abdullah de la haine. Il annule la ceinture anti-missiles sise en Alaska et propose un désarmement nucléaire inutile. (…) Plus encore, cette déplorable Amérique a semé le désordre et le mal partout dans le monde. Au lieu de collaborer multilatéralement avec tous, d’œuvrer au bien commun avec Poutine, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Saddam Hussein, Bachir al-Assad, et Cie, l’insupportable Bush en a fait des ennemis. (…) Il n’y a pas d’ennemis, il n’y a que des malentendus. Il ne peut y avoir d’affrontements, seulement des clarifications. Laurent Murawiec
Obama se croit apte, en raison de son profil, à engager un dialogue avec l’islam, que c’est la véritable raison pour laquelle il a placé les musulmans avant les juifs dans son discours inaugural, puis avant les chrétiens dans son interview du 27 janvier, et que c’est le sens de ses propos quand il dit que “l’Amérique n’est pas l’ennemie de l’islam” : il sous-entend que l’Amérique, sous l’administration d’un musulman de cœur, ou du moins d’un “vrai croyant”, ce qui selon la théologie islamique revient au même, appartenait désormais au Dar al-Sulh, à la “Maison de la Conciliation”, cette zone grise, ouverte à la prédication musulmane, qui sépare le Dar al-Islam, “Maison de la Soumission”, autrement dit le monde musulman, du Dar al-Harb, “Maison de la Guerre”, autrement dit le monde non-musulman. Michel Gurfinkiel
Dans son « parler vrai » à l’adresse du monde arabe, après avoir commencé par prétendre mensongèrement que, comme l’Amérique, l’islam cultivait « la justice et le progrès, la tolérance et la dignité de tout être humain », Obama a été sciemment et fondamentalement malhonnête. Par cette malhonnêteté, il a entrepris de placer le monde musulman sur un pied d’égalité morale avec le monde libre. (…) Malheureusement, une analyse attentive de ses déclarations montre qu’Obama adopte bel et bien le point de vue des Arabes, selon lequel Israël serait un élément étranger – et donc injustifiable – dans le monde arabe. En réalité, loin de dénoncer leur refus d’accepter Israël, Obama le légitime. L’argument fondamental que les Arabes utilisent contre Israël est que la seule raison de sa création aurait été d’apaiser la mauvaise conscience des Européens après la Shoah. Selon leurs dires, les Juifs n’auraient aucun droit sur la Terre d’Israël du point de vue légal, historique et moral. Or, cet argument est complètement faux ». (…) « La communauté internationale a reconnu les droits légaux, historiques et moraux du peuple juif sur la Terre d’Israël bien avant que quiconque ait jamais entendu parler d’Adolf Hitler. En 1922, la Société des Nations avait mandaté la « reconstitution » – et non la création – du foyer national juif sur la Terre d’Israël dans ses frontières historiques sur les deux rives du Jourdain. Cependant, dans ce qu’il présentait lui-même comme un exemple de parler-vrai, Obama a ignoré cette vérité fondamentale au profit du mensonge arabe. Il a donné du crédit à son mensonge en déclarant, hors de propos, que « l’aspiration à un territoire juif est ancrée dans un passé tragique ». Il a ensuite lié de façon explicite la création de l’État d’Israël à la Shoah, en formulant une leçon d’histoire intéressée sur le génocide des Juifs d’Europe. Pire encore que son aveuglement délibéré vis-à-vis des justifications historiques, légales et morales de la renaissance d’Israël, il y a la manière dont Obama a évoqué Israël même. De façon odieuse et mensongère, Obama a allègrement comparé la manière dont Israël traite les Palestiniens à celle dont les esclavagistes blancs, en Amérique, traitaient leurs esclaves noirs. De même, il a assimilé les terroristes palestiniens à la catégorie, moralement pure, des esclaves. De façon plus ignoble encore, en utilisant le terme de « résistance », euphémisme arabe pour désigner le terrorisme palestinien, Obama a conféré à celui-ci la grandeur morale des révoltes des esclaves et du mouvement des droits civiques. Caroline Glick (Haaretz)
Obama (…) dit que Thomas Jefferson était un lecteur du Coran, mais omet de rappeler, ce que tout lecteur de la correspondance de Jefferson sait, que si celui qui fut le troisième Président des Etats-Unis a lu le Coran, c’était pour comprendre la mentalité de gens qui exerçaient des actes de prédation violente contre des navires marchands américains. Obama cite par ailleurs une phrase de John Adams disant que ‘les Etats-Unis sont en paix’ avec le monde musulman, mais il omet de signaler que la phrase de John Adams figure dans un accord de paix qui suit une action de guerre menée par les Etats-Unis aux fins que les actes de prédation susdits cessent. (…) Et je passe sur les propos concernant l’invention de l’algèbre, du compas, de la boussole, de l’imprimerie de la médecine moderne, par des musulmans. Obama, ou son téléprompteur, n’ont jamais dû ouvrir un livre d’histoire des sciences et des techniques. (..) Je garde le meilleur pour la fin: ‘tout au long de l’histoire, l’islam a démontré, par les paroles et par les actes, les possibilités de la tolérance religieuse et de l’égalité raciale’. (…) Dire une telle phrase en gardant son sérieux implique un talent certain dans l’aptitude à dire n’importe quoi en gardant son sérieux. Enfin, et c’est le plus grave, c’est même si grave que là, on n’est plus dans le douteux, mais dans le répugnant, Obama pousse le relativisme moral et les comparaisons bancales jusqu’à un degré où il frôle le révisionnisme qu’il dénonce par ailleurs. Oser comparer la destruction des Juifs d’Europe par le régime nazi et ses complices au sort subi par le ‘peuple palestinien’ depuis soixante années montre, qu’à force d’écouter des gens comme Jeremiah Wright, il reste des salissures dans les neurones ». Guy Millière
Quoi que l’on pense de l’intervention militaire américaine, il faut bien admettre qu’elle a modifié la dynamique de la région. Les forces d’opposition intérieures, tout en se distançant des États-Unis, ont été remarquablement enhardies au Liban, en Égypte, en Arabie saoudite et ailleurs. Nous sommes tous à la recherche des premiers signes d’ouverture chez nos voisins. Je sais que certains balbutiements démocratiques ont été écrasés par le passé : à Budapest en 1956, à Prague en 1968 et sur la place Tienanmen en 1989. Pourtant, ces derniers mois possèdent un certain parfum de nouveauté irréversible. Il y a trop de gens qui dans plusieurs endroits défient leurs oppresseurs et prennent des risques pour gagner leur liberté. Pour un vieux de la vieille, le climat actuel fleure bon le printemps. Saad Eddin Ibrahim (2005)
The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings… By advancing freedom in the greater Middle East, we help end a cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that brings millions of people to misery and brings danger to our own people. The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and way of life. If the greater Middle East joins the democratic revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be ended at its source… We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East. Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold. George W. Bush (Londres, 19.11. 2005)
Tant que cette région sera en proie à la tyrannie, au désespoir et à la colère, elle engendrera des hommes et des mouvements qui menacent la sécurité des Américains et de leur alliés. Nous soutenons les progrès démocratiques pour une raison purement pratique : les démocraties ne soutiennent pas les terroristes et ne menacent pas le monde avec des armes de destruction massive. George W. Bush (Congrès, 04.02.04)
L’Irak (…) pourrait être l’un des grands succès de cette administration. Joe Biden (10.02.10)
I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel, just as African-Americans did for the non-black but culturally leaning African-American President Bill Clinton, that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama. (…) They would cite his open nature and habit of reaching out to critics, reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad’s own approach, and also Obama’s middle name, Hussein. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim. Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama’s exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. (…) One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama’s way of still being a Muslim. (And let’s not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.) The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn’t attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, “my father’s not a strict Muslim either, and I haven’t been to a mosque in years.” Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite. I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences–a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. (…) So when Obama says he’s not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you’re in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them. I work with my father, and, once, we were seeking business with a white American man who had married a Muslim woman. Noticing how much fond attention my dad paid to this man, I asked him why he liked the man so much. My dad responded that, in his marriage to a Muslim woman (who wasn’t related to us), “He’s our brother-in-law!” So if that white, middle-aged man can be my brother-in-law, then Obama can certainly be my Muslim president. Asma Gull Hasan
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male” — was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president. This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich. What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright. With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
If Clinton was, as the author Toni Morrison once quipped, America’s first black president, Bush was, at least momentarily, the country’s first Muslim president. As early as 1999, he hosted a series of meetings between Muslim and Republican leaders, and paid a visit himself to an Islamic center in Michigan — the first and only major presidential candidate to do so. The 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia was the first in either national party’s history to include a Muslim prayer. On the campaign trail, Bush celebrated the faith of Americans who regularly attended a “church, synagogue, or mosque.” After Muslim community leaders told him of their civil liberties concerns over a piece of 1996 immigration enforcement legislation signed into law by Clinton, Bush criticized it himself in one of his presidential debates against Vice President Al Gore. The work paid off. By election day, Bush had been endorsed by eight major Muslim American organizations. He won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote, including 46,200 ballots in Florida alone, prompting longtime conservative activist Grover Norquist — one of the few prominent movement figures to caution against the current wave of mosque demagoguery — to proclaim in the American Spectator that “Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote.” The 9/11 tragedy, of course, changed everything. But in the early days after the terrorist attacks, it was Bush who reminded Americans, “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith…. [O]urs is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.” He met with Muslim American leaders on numerous occasions, becoming the only sitting president to visit an American mosque, and appointed Muslim Americans to several prominent government posts. Nor was Bush the only Republican politician to distinguish the United States’ war against Islamist extremism abroad from the religion itself. House Speaker Denny Hastert, former Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Davis joined Bush in writing letters urging the U.S. Postal Service to issue a postage stamp honoring Eid, the Muslim holiday, in 2001. But as Bush’s first term unfolded, post-9/11 unity gave way to the Iraq war and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal; the same Muslim groups that protested over civil liberties infringement under the Clinton administration were predictably upset over the Patriot Act and the Bush administration’s detainment policies and warrantless wiretapping activities. In the 2004 election, more than half of the Muslim vote went to Democrat John Kerry and third-party candidates. And despite Bush’s best efforts to separate terrorism from the faith of Islam, a growing chorus of conservative commentators was failing to make any such distinction. (…) In 2007, after Bush made a statement pointing to Islam’s place alongside Christianity and Judaism in the Abrahamic religious tradition, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asked, “How can the president say that we all worship the same God when Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus?” When the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring Ramadan in 2007, 42 Republican congressmen declined to vote in favor of it, instead voting “present.” As a Muslim American and a Republican who served in the Bush administration, I always believed that the anti-Muslim backlash was the work of a small number of cynical bigots, not the view of the vast, fair-minded majority of Americans. But as the 2008 election picked up steam, participating in the political process came at a great moral cost, and entailed considerable heartache. (…) If the Republican candidates treated Muslims as the enemy, the Obama campaign treated them like untouchables, keeping the Democratic candidate’s Muslim supporters at arm’s length throughout the election. When prominent Muslim and Arab Americans such as Ellison and Democratic Party superdelegate James Zogby volunteered to campaign for Obama in key states such as North Carolina and Iowa, they were told to stay away. “A lot of us are waiting for [Obama] to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim,” Ellison lamented. Instead, the campaign treated “Muslim” as an insult, classifying the much-circulated false claim that Obama practiced the religion as a “smear” to be debunked on the campaign’s website. A Muslim American campaign staffer resigned when a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Simpson, asked about his religious background. At a rally in Detroit in June 2008, Obama campaign volunteers removed two Muslim American women who were seated behind the podium where the candidate would be speaking (campaign higher-ups later apologized for the incident). Only retired Gen. Colin Powell seemed willing to stand up to the fear mongering. “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” he asked in a TV interview days before the election. “The answer is no. That’s not America.” Suhail A. KhanSuhail A. Khan
Attention: un président musulman peut en cacher un autre !
Abandon des manifestants iraniens, du régime égyptien, de la Libye, de l’Irak et bientôt de l’Afghanistan au chaos djihadiste ou taliban …
Alors qu’après la presse et nombre d’Américains, la Maison Blanche elle-même en est à regretter les absence de plus en plus remarquée du leader du Monde libre à une marche qui, entre Mahmoud Abbas, Ahmet Davitoglu et Sergueï Lavrov, pouvait apparaitre comme une défense de la liberté de blasphème …
Certe pour un pays où à peine plus d’un tiers des personnes interrogées se reconnaissent le droit au blasphème, 37% des Démocrates contre 50% des Républicains sont en faveur de la publication de satires de la religion et où les médias évitent ou floutent régulièrement les caricatures jugées offensantes ou, à l’instar de leurs collègues britanniques, sont passés maitres de l’équivalence morale …
Pendant que dans la France des lois mémorielles et de la 17e chambre et entre légions d’honneur, hommages aux Invalides et glas de Notre-Dame, les maitres du bouffage de curés et de l’anti-militarisme croulent à présent sous les hommages posthumes …
Et qu’entre ses multiples références à ses origines, à l’apport de l’islam au monde et à la place de l’islam dans son propre pays ou son soutien pour la mosquée de Ground zero …
Et, de la Turquie à l’Iran ou de l’Irak à l’Afghanistan, ses tout aussi multiples prises de positions favorables à des pays musulmans …
Barack Hussein Obama a longtemps été dénoncé ou célébré comme le « premier président musulman » …
Comment ne pas voir au contraire, comme le rappelait il y a cinq ans une tribune de Foreign policy, que le premier président musulman n’est peut-être pas celui qu’on croit ?
America’s First Muslim President
Muslim Americans helped elect George W. Bush, but now they’re leaving the Republican Party in droves. It didn’t have to be this way.
Suhail A. KhanSuhail A. Khan
Foreign Policy
August 23, 2010
I’ve been involved in politics for well over two decades, so you can imagine how proud I was when I learned that my newly retired mother had signed up to volunteer during the 2008 presidential primary campaign in our native California. But even though she was a longstanding Republican, it came as little surprise that the candidate for whom she was volunteering was not. After years as a GOP loyalist, my mother had come to believe that the party was hostile to her values and faith. Rather than stumping for John McCain’s election effort, she told me, she was working for Barack Obama’s.
My mother wasn’t alone. In recent weeks, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and other prominent Republicans have loudly voiced their opposition to the proposed Cordoba House project near ground zero in lower Manhattan, fanning the flames of a protest that has since spread into a more generalized criticism of Muslim institutions in the United States. But even before this month’s controversy, the exodus of Muslim Americans from the Republican Party was nearly complete. In 2008, this country’s more than 7 million Muslims voted in record numbers, and nearly 90 percent of their votes went to Obama.
It wasn’t always this way. Muslim Americans are, by and large, both socially and economically conservative. Sixty-one percent of them would ban abortion except to save the life of the mother; 84 percent support school choice. Muslims overwhelmingly support traditional marriage. More than a quarter — over twice the national average — are self-employed small-business owners, and most support reducing taxes and the abolition of the estate tax. By all rights they should be Republicans — and not long ago they were. American Muslims voted two to one for George H.W. Bush in 1992. While they went for Bill Clinton by the same margin in 1996, they were brought back into the Republican fold in 2000 by George W. Bush.
If Clinton was, as the author Toni Morrison once quipped, America’s first black president, Bush was, at least momentarily, the country’s first Muslim president. As early as 1999, he hosted a series of meetings between Muslim and Republican leaders, and paid a visit himself to an Islamic center in Michigan — the first and only major presidential candidate to do so. The 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia was the first in either national party’s history to include a Muslim prayer. On the campaign trail, Bush celebrated the faith of Americans who regularly attended a “church, synagogue, or mosque.” After Muslim community leaders told him of their civil liberties concerns over a piece of 1996 immigration enforcement legislation signed into law by Clinton, Bush criticized it himself in one of his presidential debates against Vice President Al Gore.
The work paid off. By election day, Bush had been endorsed by eight major Muslim American organizations. He won more than 70 percent of the Muslim vote, including 46,200 ballots in Florida alone, prompting longtime conservative activist Grover Norquist — one of the few prominent movement figures to caution against the current wave of mosque demagoguery — to proclaim in the American Spectator that “Bush was elected President of the United States of America because of the Muslim vote.”
The 9/11 tragedy, of course, changed everything. But in the early days after the terrorist attacks, it was Bush who reminded Americans, “Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith…. [O]urs is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for.” He met with Muslim American leaders on numerous occasions, becoming the only sitting president to visit an American mosque, and appointed Muslim Americans to several prominent government posts. Nor was Bush the only Republican politician to distinguish the United States’ war against Islamist extremism abroad from the religion itself. House Speaker Denny Hastert, former Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson, and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Davis joined Bush in writing letters urging the U.S. Postal Service to issue a postage stamp honoring Eid, the Muslim holiday, in 2001.
But as Bush’s first term unfolded, post-9/11 unity gave way to the Iraq war and the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal; the same Muslim groups that protested over civil liberties infringement under the Clinton administration were predictably upset over the Patriot Act and the Bush administration’s detainment policies and warrantless wiretapping activities. In the 2004 election, more than half of the Muslim vote went to Democrat John Kerry and third-party candidates.
And despite Bush’s best efforts to separate terrorism from the faith of Islam, a growing chorus of conservative commentators was failing to make any such distinction. In October 2001, conservative pundit Ann Coulter was fired by the National Review for writing of Muslims, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” But a few years later, such arguments were commonplace. Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo commented in 2005 that the U.S. response to terrorism should be to bomb Muslim holy cities including Mecca. Virginia Republican Rep. Virgil Goode complained that the 2006 election of Muslim Americans such as Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison underscored the need for immigration reform (a curious argument considering that Ellison was born in Detroit to Roman Catholic parents). In 2007, after Bush made a statement pointing to Islam’s place alongside Christianity and Judaism in the Abrahamic religious tradition, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asked, “How can the president say that we all worship the same God when Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus?” When the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring Ramadan in 2007, 42 Republican congressmen declined to vote in favor of it, instead voting “present.”
As a Muslim American and a Republican who served in the Bush administration, I always believed that the anti-Muslim backlash was the work of a small number of cynical bigots, not the view of the vast, fair-minded majority of Americans. But as the 2008 election picked up steam, participating in the political process came at a great moral cost, and entailed considerable heartache. At Republican campaign rallies, harsh statements about “Muslims” and “Arabs” were ubiquitous. Rod Parsley, an influential evangelical pastor in Ohio and an early McCain supporter, urged Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam (McCain eventually rejected Parsley’s support). Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, when asked about putting a Muslim American in his cabinet, replied that he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” based on the percentage of Muslims in the country.
If the Republican candidates treated Muslims as the enemy, the Obama campaign treated them like untouchables, keeping the Democratic candidate’s Muslim supporters at arm’s length throughout the election. When prominent Muslim and Arab Americans such as Ellison and Democratic Party superdelegate James Zogby volunteered to campaign for Obama in key states such as North Carolina and Iowa, they were told to stay away. “A lot of us are waiting for [Obama] to say that there’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim,” Ellison lamented.
Instead, the campaign treated “Muslim” as an insult, classifying the much-circulated false claim that Obama practiced the religion as a “smear” to be debunked on the campaign’s website.
A Muslim American campaign staffer resigned when a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Glenn Simpson, asked about his religious background. At a rally in Detroit in June 2008, Obama campaign volunteers removed two Muslim American women who were seated behind the podium where the candidate would be speaking (campaign higher-ups later apologized for the incident). Only retired Gen. Colin Powell seemed willing to stand up to the fear mongering. “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?” he asked in a TV interview days before the election. “The answer is no. That’s not America.”
Despite the cold shoulder from Democrats, most Muslim Americans, like my mother, sided with Obama — and voted in record numbers, particularly in electorally crucial swing states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia. And though many American Muslims have grown impatient with the Democratic administration’s lack of progress on issues such as civil liberties, peace between Israel and Palestine, and the unfair treatment of Muslim charities, they remain firmly in the Obama camp. Why wouldn’t they? Since the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” controversy erupted last month, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio has blasted the mosque’s “terrorist-sympathizing” imam; Gingrich has made statements equating Islam with Nazism.
On every issue and by every measure, Muslim Americans should vote firmly with the GOP. But they won’t until the party finds leadership willing to stop playing to the worst instincts of its minority of bigoted supporters. I’m not convinced that’s impossible — for one thing, it’s happened once already, in the GOP’s relationship with Hispanic voters. Republicans lost the broad support of Hispanics — who, like Muslim Americans, tend toward social conservatism — for several elections starting in 1994, when California Gov. Pete Wilson supported the passage of Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that sought to block illegal immigrants from accessing health care, public education, and other social services. But with Bush’s vigorous outreach efforts in 2000 and 2004, Hispanic support for the GOP climbed back up to 45 percent — only to crash again in 2008 amid the rhetorically charged debate over immigration reform.
There are similar rays of hope for Muslim Republicans. Former Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who lost his wife Barbara on 9/11, declared on Aug. 18 that “people of all religions have a right to build … places of religious worship or study, where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws … we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, an up-and-comer in the national conservative movement, recently warned against “overreacting” to the threat of terrorism and painting “all of Islam” with the brush of terrorism. “We have to bring people together,” he said. Let’s hope that thoughtful voices such as Governor Christie, and not those who rely on mistrust and fear, win the day.
Suhail A. KhanSuhail A. Khan serves on the board of directors of the American Conservative Union and as chairman of the Conservative Inclusion Coalition, an organization dedicated to the political involvement of Americans of all ethnic, racial, and faith backgrounds.
Voir aussi:
America’s first Muslim president?
Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
The Washington Times
June 9, 2009
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton — someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a “white male” — was dubbed “America’s first black president” by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.
This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, “much has been made” — in this case by him and his campaign handlers — of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.
With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “the Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:
• Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.” Non-Muslims — even pandering ones — generally don’t use that Islamic formulation.
• Mr. Obama established his firsthand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Muhammad.
• Then the president made a statement no believing Christian — certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam — would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “… when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.”
Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men. According to Islam, that is what all three were – dead prophets. Of course, for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.
In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim. In the 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.
For example, Mr. Obama has — from literally his inaugural address onward — inflated the numbers and, in that way and others, exaggerated the contemporary and historical importance of Muslim-Americans in the United States. In the Speech, he used the Brotherhood’s estimates of “nearly 7 million Muslims” in this country, at least twice the estimates from other, more reputable sources. (Who knows? By the time Mr. Obama’s friends in the radical Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census takers, the official count may well claim considerably morethan 7 million Muslims are living here.)
Even more troubling were the commitments the president made in Cairo to promote Islam in America. For instance, he declared: “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” He vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads, including, presumably, when having their photographs taken for passports, driver’s licenses or other identification purposes. He also pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism. Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic “charities” in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.
Particularly worrying is the realignment Mr. Obama has announced in U.S. policy toward Israel. While he pays lip service to the “unbreakable” bond between America and the Jewish state, the president has unmistakably signaled that he intends to compel the Israelis to make territorial and other strategic concessions to Palestinians to achieve the hallowed two-state solution. In doing so, he ignores the inconvenient fact that both the Brotherhood’s Hamas and Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be driven “into the sea.”
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.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy.
Voir également:
My Muslim President Obama
Asma Gull Hasan
Forbes
2/25/2009
I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel, just as African-Americans did for the non-black but culturally leaning African-American President Bill Clinton, that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama.
I know it’s odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use “Muslim” as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense. But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, “I have to support my fellow Muslim brother,” would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.
“Well, I know he’s not really Muslim,” I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, “yes he is.” They would cite his open nature and habit of reaching out to critics, reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad’s own approach, and also Obama’s middle name, Hussein. Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.
Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama’s exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim–maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama’s way of still being a Muslim. (And let’s not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)
The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn’t attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, “my father’s not a strict Muslim either, and I haven’t been to a mosque in years.” Obama even told The New York Times he could recite the adhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite.
I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences–a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. So many of us Muslims around the world have Islam in common, but an altogether different culture from one another. Many Muslims share a culture with a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist community but not the same religion. When faced with such diversity, there are no hard and fast rules for Muslim identity.
The Qur’an speaks often of the umma, or the worldwide community of Muslims. In the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad led the small umma. Every decision, every effort, everything was for the umma–people who were often unrelated by blood but had become related by choice as Muslims. In those early days, many Muslims had gone against the wishes of their own families in converting to Islam, pitting brother against sister, father against child. Perhaps that’s why the concept of umma became so dear and is still echoed today–in my opinion, echoed more than that Western favorite jihad–in Muslim homes, whether those homes are in the United States or in Palestine.
Perhaps it is my–and most Muslims’– loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma. If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut. So when Obama says he’s not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you’re in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them.
I work with my father, and, once, we were seeking business with a white American man who had married a Muslim woman. Noticing how much fond attention my dad paid to this man, I asked him why he liked the man so much. My dad responded that, in his marriage to a Muslim woman (who wasn’t related to us), “He’s our brother-in-law!” So if that white, middle-aged man can be my brother-in-law, then Obama can certainly be my Muslim president.
Asma Gull Hasan is the author of Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief.
Voir encore:
Islamic Terrorism by Any Other Name …
Bernard Goldberg
January 12, 2015
More than a million people turned out. More than 40 presidents and prime ministers were there. It was, as the New York Times reported, “the most striking show of solidarity in the West against the threat of Islamic extremism since the Sept. 11 attacks.”
But President Obama did not go to Paris. Neither did Joe Biden. Or John Kerry. Attorney General Eric Holder was in the city but he didn’t go to the rally either.
There is a visceral reaction, of course. What could Barack Obama have been thinking? How could he not go and show support to a friend who had been attacked? The official explanation is that there were concerns about security and how they would distract from the event. But other world leaders showed up and they managed to figure out a way around the security issues.
The (NY) Daily News ran a Front Page headline, sending President Obama a message in type the size of the Eiffel Tower: “You let the world down”
The (UK) Daily Mail headline read, “America snubs historic Paris rally”
Is it unreasonable to wonder if the President was a no-show precisely because it wasn’t a rally against extremism in general, but against Islamic extremism in particular?
Islamic terrorism may be the most challenging issue of our time, but Barack Obama can’t bring himself to utter those two words, side by side. For a while, he wouldn’t even call terrorism … terrorism. Imagine if FDR refused to talk about the Nazi menace but instead tiptoed around the subject and talked instead about “extremism.” Wouldn’t that seem … odd?
This is a president who won’t even acknowledge that the Islamic State is … Islamic. Despite the fact that the stated goal of the ISIS jihadists is to create a caliphate in the Middle East, President Obama said the organization “is not Islamic.” He also said they’re not even part of the Muslim religion.
You have to wonder if Mr. Obama thinks that by not linking the words Islamic and terrorism that somehow Islamic terrorism doesn’t really exist. Howard Dean, another so-called progressive, recently said on MSNBC (where else?) that those that many of us call Muslim terrorists are not really Muslims because Islam is a religion of peace. George Orwell must be smiling.
“These acts were done by specific people with a specific ideology,” Jonah Goldberg said on Fox, “and this White House is still incredibly gun shy, no pun intended, about calling any attention to the fact that the people we’re at war with aren’t just generic extremists off the shelf, but they’re a specific ideology with a specific religious orientation. And President Obama won’t even call ISIS Islamic.”
Perhaps the president is concerned that he would be offending moderate Muslims if he put the name of their religion alongside the word “terrorism.” But if they’re truly moderate, they’re already offended – by the actions of the terrorists.
Or perhaps he’s caving to Muslim civil rights groups in America, or doesn’t want to rile the volatile Arab Street abroad.
Whether the president understands it or not, his attempt to avoid being polarizing is having the opposite effect.
But let’s not think this president doesn’t care about terrorism. He most certainly does. That’s why next month he’s holding a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism” – the purpose of which, according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is “to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris.”
Did you see the words Islamic or Muslim or even terrorism anyplace in that statement?
Words matter. But so does reality, which cannot be changed simply because the leader of the free world refuses to call Islamic terrorism by its name.
Voir par ailleurs:
America snubs historic Paris rally: Holder was there but skipped out early, Kerry was in India, Obama and Biden just stayed home
Ashley Collman and David Martosko, US Political Editor and Michael Zennie
Daily Mail
11 January 2015
President Barack Obama and other top members of his administration have snubbed a historic rally in Paris today that brought together more than 40 world leaders from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even Russia.
‘France is our oldest ally,’ Obama said during a speech Friday in Tennessee. ‘I want the people of France to know that the United States stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.’
But he wasn’t standing in Paris as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas put aside their differences and linked arms.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov made the same unifying gesture in the march down the Place de la Concorde in defiance of the Islamist terror attacks that rocked the city last week.
According to an administration official, President Obama spent part of his Sunday afternoon watching a National Football League game on television. Both games were broadcast hours after the march.
Heads of state from every major European power, including British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, joined French President Francois Hollande.
But the U.S.A. was M.I.A.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden remained in Washington, despite having no events on their public schedules Sunday. Secretary of State John Kerry was a world away in India, on a pre-planned trip.
Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris for a terrorism summit held on the march’s sidelines, but he slipped away and made appearances on four American morning television talk shows just as the incredible rally was starting.
The US was represented at the march only by Jane Hartley, the American ambassador to France who is unrecognizable to most Americans, let alone the rest of the world.
A senior administration official was quick to point out, however, that ‘Attorney General Holder – a Cabinet level official – is representing the United States at the security meetings in Paris today.’
‘He is joined by the DHS Deputy Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas,’ the official added in a statement to many news outlets.
‘The United States is represented at the march by Ambassador Hartley.’
And ‘as far as public signs of French solidarity from the U.S.,’ the official concluded, ‘don’t forget several public statements from the president, his call to Hollande and a condolence stop to the French embassy.’
Obama went to the French embassy in Washington, D.C. on Thurdsay to pay his respects, and signed a condolence book with the rallying cry ‘Vive la France!’
Holder, Obama’s longest-serving cabinet member, was pictured shaking hands with French officials after the event, but he slipped away – as did Mayorgas – before the march kicked off around 3:00 p.m.
The attorney general appeared on four Sunday morning talk shows around the same time as the march, although it’s unclear whether he spoke live from Paris or if his segments were pre-recorded.
The Department of Justice would not immediately comment on Holder’s schedule with DailyMail.com, and a spokesperson for Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson similarly did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The White House press office also did not respond to a question seeking confirmation that the president was engrossed in the NFL playoffs on Sunday afternoon.
Vice President Joe Biden often fills in for the president at events that require White House gravitas, but he was nowhere to be seen either, despite his own empty schedule.
Among those who did attend were: Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Union President Donald Tusk, Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas, Queen Rania and King Abdullah II of Jordan, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Political opponents – and even some allies – were quick to criticize Obama for not showing up himself, or at least sending a senior administration official to represent him at the street-swelling rally.
An incensed former Speaker of the house Newt Gingrich vented on Twitter and told DailyMail.com that it was ‘sad that 50 world leaders could show solidarity in Paris but President Obama refused to participate.’
‘The cowardice continues,’ Gingrich jabbed, referring to Republicans’ refrain that he has shown a weak hand when dealing with terrorism overseas.
Politico reporter Ben White tweeted: ‘Is it just me or does it feel like Obama should be at this big March in Paris?’
Fox News host Greta Van Susteren wrote: ‘This is really embarrassing – WHERE IS PRESIDENT OBAMA? Why didn’t he go?’
Obama’s absence was notable as dozens of nations’ show of solidarity unfolded before a global audience – especially considering his public schedule was wide open.
According to Buzzfeed, Holder left Paris after the summit to return to Washington.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry was half a world away in India, preparing for the president’s upcoming trip to the south Asian country in the coming weeks.
The foreign dignitaries were protected with police snipers, plainclothes cops and anti-terror officers. Streets were shut down and parking was restricted.
CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that security for the march was difficult, with 2,300 police officers and paramilitary forces deployed to Paris.
However, the attendance of controversial heads of state like Netanyahu appeared to show that the march was well secured.
‘I don’t mean this as a criticism of the Obama administration,’ Tapper said Sunday while reporting live from Paris, ‘but just as an American I do wish that we were better represented in this beautiful procession of world leaders.’
‘I’m a little disappointed, personally – this is me speaking personally, not as a representative of CNN, but as an American – that there isn’t more of a display of unity here,’ the host of ‘The Lead’ added.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria was one of the many who noticed President Obama’s absence, and remarked that it was a mistake not to show up and support our ‘deepest ideological ally.’
Zakaria said that it would have sent an important message to have an American face among the wold leaders.
Forbes columnist Stuart Anderson echoed Zakaria’s statements, saying: ‘By not attending the unity rally in Paris on Sunday, President Obama has missed an opportunity to show leadership, to demonstrate that Americans are as committed to fight against terrorism as anyone in the world.
‘And that America stands with its allies in a worldwide battle that, unfortunately, is likely to last many years.’
The White House announced on Sunday that it would convene ‘a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism’ in February ‘to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence.’
A statement from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest made no specific mention of Islam, Islamist terrorism, or Muslims in general.
Voir par ailleurs:
Marche républicaine : Obama « aurait aimé pouvoir se rendre sur place »
Le Monde.fr avec AFP
12.01.2015
La Maison Blanche a regretté, lundi 12 janvier, de ne pas avoir envoyé un responsable de premier plan à la marche citoyenne organisée dimanche à Paris en hommage aux victimes des attentats islamistes. « Nous aurions dû envoyer quelqu’un du plus haut niveau », a admis Josh Earnest, porte-parole de l’exécutif américain, répondant à de nombreuses critiques dans la presse américaine sur l’absence du président Barack Obama.
« Cela étant dit, il ne fait aucun doute que les Américains et cette administration sont pleinement au côté de la France », a ajouté M. Earnest, saluant la « remarquable démonstration d’unité » dont les Français ont fait preuve lors de la manifestation de dimanche. « Si les circonstances avaient été différentes, le président lui-même aurait aimé pouvoir se rendre sur place », a-t-il ajouté, mettant en avant le court délai entre le moment où cette marche a été annoncée et son déroulement, ainsi que les contraintes logistiques liées à un déplacement présidentiel.
Il est reproché à Barack Obama de ne pas avoir au moins dépêché le vice-président, Joe Biden, ou le secrétaire d’Etat, John Kerry. Ce dernier, en visite en Inde, a cependant annoncé lundi lors d’une conférence de presse, qu’il se rendrait cette semaine à Paris pour exprimer la solidarité des Etats-Unis.
« Nul acte de terrorisme, nulle personne armée de [fusil d’assaut] AK47, nulle prise d’otages dans une épicerie n’arrêtera jamais ceux qui sont engagés dans la marche de la liberté.
La relation avec la France ne tient pas à un moment ou un jour particulier. (…) C’est une relation continue très profondément ancrée (…) dans des valeurs communes, en particulier la liberté d’expression. »
Quarante-quatre chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement étaient présents aux côtés de François Hollande, lors de ce rassemblement d’une ampleur sans précédent. Les Etats-Unis étaient représentés par leur ambassadrice en France, Jane Hartley. Le ministre de la justice, Eric Holder, a également rencontré ses homologues européens pour réfléchir aux moyens à mettre en œuvre pour améliorer la coopération dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, mais il n’a pas participé au défilé.
« EMBARRASSANT »
Pour Fareed Zakaria, animateur d’une nouvelle émission sur CNN, l’absence de haut responsable américain était une erreur. « C’est très embarrassant – Où est le président Obama ? Pourquoi n’y est-il pas allé ? », s’interroge quant à elle Greta Van Susteren, de Fox News, sur Twitter.
« Il est triste que cinquante dirigeants étrangers aient exprimé leur solidarité à Paris mais que le président Obama ait refusé d’y participer. La lâcheté continue », écrit Newt Gingrich, ancien président de la Chambre des représentants et candidat à l’investiture républicaine pour la présidentielle de 2012, également sur Twitter.
Politico s’interroge également sur l’absence du chef d’Etat américain à la marche républicaine parisienne. Quant au Daily Mail, il titre en « une » : « Vous avez laissé tomber le monde ».
Barack Obama s’était en revanche rendu jeudi à l’ambassade de France à Washington. « Je tiens à ce que le peuple de France sache que les Etats-Unis sont à leurs côtés et le seront demain », a-t-il déclaré le lendemain. Il présidera en février une conférence internationale sur la lutte contre l’extrémisme à Washington, ont annoncé ses services dimanche. En France, certains notent que sa présence aurait supposé un dispositif de sécurité impensable compte tenu de la mobilisation.
Voir de plus:
Couverture de Charlie Hebdo: ces médias anglo-saxons qui refusent toujours de publier les caricatures
Grégory Raymond
Le HuffPost
08/01/2015
MÉDIAS – De nombreux médias anglo-saxons ont volontairement masqué les caricatures de Mohamet lors du traitement de l’attentat de Charlie Hebdo. Mercredi, la rédaction du journal satirique a été prise pour cible par deux terroristes se revendiquant d’Al Qaida. Douze personnes, dont sept journalistes, ont perdu la vie dans l’attaque.
Ce dilemme de publier (ou non) les caricatures rappelle la controverse de 2005-2006, lorsque les dessins du journal danois Jyllands-Posten avaient défrayé la chronique. Charlie Hebdo avait fait partie des premiers à les relayer, en rajoutant ses propres productions. Devant l’ampleur du drame de mercredi, certains médias se retrouvent ainsi face à un choix: éditorial d’abord, mais aussi de sécurité. Parmi eux, la chaîne d’information en continu CNN a délibérément choisi de pixéliser les caricatures du prophète dans ses sujets.
« Comme cette histoire dramatique ne cesse d’évoluer, nous discutons constamment de la meilleure manière d’aborder les questions clés et les images sur l’ensemble de nos plateformes », s’est justifié un porte-parole de la chaîne auprès de BuzzFeed. « Ces conversations se poursuivront toute la journée et tant que l’histoire continue », laissant penser que rien n’est figé.
Néanmoins, le site Politico a mis la main sur un mémo diffusé en interne. On peut y lire que « jusqu’à présent nous ne montrons par les caricatures de Charlie Hebdo considérées comme offensantes par de nombreux Musulmans, les différentes éditions sont encouragées à les décrire en détails ». Dans le cas où on pourrait les voir dans les mains de personnes défilant dans les rues, CNN fait une dernière recommandation: « D’accord si c’est en plan large ».
Les réseaux câblés NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC News et CBS News ont adopté des politiques similaires. Sur la chaîne conservatrice Fox News, une caricature a été montrée une fois à l’image, relate le Washington Post. Mais il ne serait pas question de rééditer l’opération.
Les astuces utilisées par la presse écrite
En Grande-Bretagne, le Daily Telegraph a aussi « flouté » une des caricatures apparaissant sur la couverture d’un hors-série de Charlie Hebdo. Un internaute évoque sur Twitter la « victoire » des terroristes en réaction à ce traitement.
Le quotidien britannique a utilisé une autre astuce pour illustrer le sujet sans forcément passer par une modification graphique. Ici, le Telegraph a redimensionné une photo de Stéphane Charbonnier (dit « Charb »), le directeur de la publication de Charlie Hebdo, pour relater son meurtre.
Pour le New York Daily News, le choix s’est également porté sur une pixélisation des photos. Sur ce cliché de novembre 2011, Charb devant ses locaux détruits et montrant la « une » à l’origine de l’attaque au cocktail molotov.
Plus étonnant encore, une photo a été altérée alors qu’elle ne contenait aucune référence au prophète Mohamet (dont l’islam interdit sa représentation). Sur la « une » tenue par Charb, on voit une caricature d’un imam en chaise roulante poussé par un rabbin. L’iman seul a été pixélisé par le Daily News, laissant penser que la rédaction n’a voulu prendre aucun risque.
La réponse argumentée du New York Times
Ces cas ne sont pas isolés dans la presse anglo-saxonne. Même le prestigieux New York Times a décidé de faire l’impasse sur la publication des caricatures, mais le procédé est plus élégant. Seules des « unes » dégagées de toute référence religieuse ont servi d’illustrations.
Voici ce qu’a expliqué un porte-parole du quotidien: « Selon les standards du Times, nous ne publions pas d’images ou d’autres matériaux offensant délibérément les sensibilités religieuses. Après concertation, les journalistes du Times ont décidé que décrire les caricatures en question donnerait suffisamment d’informations pour comprendre l’histoire. »
Outre-atlantique, on considère qu’il faut jouer l’apaisement. Le cas d’Associated Press est d’ailleurs démonstratif: alors que l’agence de presse propose des photos comprenant des caricatures et d’autres non, les clients d’AP ont intentionnellement porté leur choix sur les clichés « light ».
Dans ce mouvement qui peut être perçu aussi bien comme de l’autocensure ou du respect, quelques médias décident de tout montrer. C’est le cas de l’Américain BuzzFeed et de nos confrères du Huffington Post US. Mais peu de journaux papier ont fait ce choix: le vénérable Times de Londres en fait partie tout comme le San Francisco Chronicle. Mais les exemples ne sont pas légion.
« Quel droit ai-je de mettre en danger les vies de mon équipe? »
Stephen Pollard, journaliste au Jewish Chronicle de Londres, a expliqué sur Twitter pourquoi il ne voulait pas prendre le risque de les publier.
« Soyez réalistes, les gars. Un journal juif comme le mien qui publierait les caricatures se retrouverait en tête des priorités de meurtre par les islamistes ».
« C’est facile d’attaquer les journaux qui ne montreraient pas les caricatures. Mais voici mon dilemme de journaliste. Tous les principes auxquels je tiens me poussent à les imprimer. Mais quel droit ai-je de mettre en danger les vies de mon équipe pour faire un coup ? »
Plus étonnant encore, aucun dessin de Charlie Hebdo n’ont été publié dans le journal danois qui avait caricaturé Mahomet pour la première fois. Constamment menacé depuis leur publication en 2005, il était le seul de son pays à ne pas reproduire de dessin jeudi. « Je réaffirme mon droit en tant que rédacteur en chef de publier tout type de dessins de nouveau à un certain moment. Mais pas là », s’est justifié Jørn Mikkelsen dans les colonnes de son propre journal, Jyllands-Posten. « Le même débat se poursuit depuis maintenant dix ans, pour ou contre les caricatures, etc. Il faut avancer », a-t-il ajouté.
Depuis 2005, la police a déjoué plusieurs projets d’attentats contre le Jyllands-Posten, autour duquel la sécurité a été encore renforcée mercredi, de même que la protection dont bénéficie l’ex-rédacteur en chef qui avait décidé la publication des caricatures. L’actuel a admis avoir pris en compte la sécurité de ses collègues. « La vérité c’est que pour nous il serait complètement irresponsable de publier de vieux ou de nouveaux dessins du prophète maintenant », a-t-il expliqué. « Beaucoup ne veulent pas l’admettre. Moi si, quoique à contrecoeur. Le Jyllands-Posten a une responsabilité envers lui-même et ses salariés ».
Quand le FT traite Charlie « d’irresponsables »
Preuve que l’attentat de Charlie Hebdo n’en finit plus de déchaîner les passions, voilà qu’un journaliste du Financial Times a essuyé de violentes critiques après une tribune d’opinion. Le rédacteur en chef Europe du quotidien, Tony Barber, a écrit: « La France est le pays de Voltaire mais trop souvent l’irresponsabilité éditoriale a prévalu chez Charlie Hebdo ». Des propos particulièrement violents, seulement quelques heures après la mort des journalistes.
Devant les réactions des internautes, la phrase polémique a été supprimée dans journée. « L’article a été actualisé, cela fait partie du processus éditorial », a justifié Darcy Keller, une représentante du journal. Mais si le texte est resté en ligne dans une version remaniée, l’originale continue de circuler sur les réseaux sociaux.
Néanmoins, la version en ligne comprend toujours une critique de Charlie Hebdo. On peut y lire: « Il ne s’agit pas pour le moins du monde d’excuser les meurtriers, qui doivent être capturés et punis, ou de suggérer que la liberté d’expression ne devrait pas s’appliquer à la représentation satirique de la religion. Mais seulement de dire que le bon sens serait utile dans des publications telles que Charlie Hebdo, ou le journal danois Jyllands-Posten (ndlr: qui a également publié les caricatures de Mahomet), qui prétendent remporter une victoire pour la liberté en provoquant des musulmans ».
Initialement, ce paragraphe s’achevait par, « alors qu’en réalité ils sont seulement stupides. »
Voir aussi:
RSF dénonce une récupération indigne et appelle à la solidarité avec tous les Charlie du monde
RSF
11 janvier 2015.
Reporters sans frontières (RSF) se félicite de la présence de nombreux chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement étrangers lors du rassemblement du dimanche 11 janvier en hommage aux victimes des attentats, mais s’indigne de la présence de représentants de pays répressifs de la liberté de l’information.
Au nom de quoi les représentants de régimes prédateurs de la liberté de la presse viennent-ils défiler à Paris en hommage à un journal qui a toujours défendu la conception la plus haute de la liberté d’expression ? Reporters sans frontières (RSF) s’indigne de la présence à la “marche républicaine” à Paris de dirigeants de pays dans lesquels les journalistes et les blogueurs sont systématiquement brimés, tels l’Egypte, la Russie, la Turquie, l’Algérie et les Emirats arabes unis. Au Classement mondial de la liberté de la presse publié par RSF, ces pays sont respectivement 159e, 148e, 154e, 121e et 118e sur 180.
“Nous devons nous montrer solidaires de Charlie sans oublier tous les Charlie du monde, déclare Christophe Deloire, secrétaire général de Reporters sans frontières. Il serait intolérable que des représentants d’Etats étrangers qui réduisent les journalistes au silence dans leurs pays profitent de l’émotion pour tenter d’améliorer leur image internationale. Il est à craindre que, de retour dans leurs pays, ces manifestants officiels continuent leurs politiques répressives. Nous ne devons pas laisser les prédateurs de la liberté de la presse cracher sur les tombes de Charlie Hebdo.”
Les autorités ont annoncé la présence du Premier ministre turc Ahmet Davutoglu, des ministres des Affaires étrangères égyptien et russe, Sameh Choukry et Sergueï Lavrov, des ministres des Affaires étrangères d’Algérie et des Emirats arabes unis, Ramtane Lamamra et cheikh Abdallah ben Zayed Al-Nahyane, et du président gabonais Ali Bongo.
Voir enfin:
Flemming Rose : «Dès que les médias intériorisent la peur, c’est fini»
Laure Mandeville
le Figaro
13/01/2015 à 22:00
INTERVIEW – L’ancien rédacteur en chef du journal danois Jyllands Posten réagit à l’attaque contre Charlie Hebdo. En 2005, le quotidien publie douze caricatures de Mahomet.
Aujourd’hui chef de la politique étrangère du grand journal danoisJyllands Posten, dont il était rédacteur en chef pendant la publication des caricatures de Mahomet en 2005, Flemming Rose est l’une des cibles des islamistes radicaux aux côtés du caricaturiste Kurt Westergaard. Il a publié The Tyranny of Silence, sorti en novembre aux États-Unis (Cato Press, 2014).
LE FIGARO.- Votre réaction à l’attaque contre Charlie Hebdo?
Flemming ROSE. – C’est un cauchemar qui devient réalité. Je vis la pire semaine de ma vie professionnelle, depuis les attaques contre nos ambassades après la publication des caricatures de Mahomet en 2006. Mais, contrairement à 2006, je ne suis pas surpris. Il y avait eu une attaque à la bombe contre Charlie Hebdo, des menaces de mort. Il y a eu plusieurs tentatives d’attentats contre notre journal Jyllands Posten, et notamment contre le caricaturiste Kurt Westergaard et moi-même. Seule la vigilance des citoyens danois et le manque de professionnalisme des comploteurs les ont empêchés d’aboutir. Je connaissais certaines des victimes, comme Wolinski. J’ai été témoin au procès de Charlie Hebdo. Tous les journalistes de Jyllands Posten peuvent s’identifier avec Charlie, car ce qui est arrivé peut nous arriver.
Est-ce parce que Charlie Hebdo était isolé dans son combat qu’il a pu être frappé?
Absolument. J’ai travaillé sur l’URSS, c’était le même mécanisme de peur. Le seul moyen de lutter contre la censure parmi les dissidents était que tout le monde signe les pétitions. Le Mur est tombé quand les gens ont cessé d’avoir peur. Dès que vous intériorisez la peur, c’est fini. Je crains que cela se produise en Occident face aux radicaux islamistes. La réalité est que nous avons intériorisé la fatwa lancée contre Salman Rushdie pour ses Versets sataniques. Il n’existe pas de loi contre le blasphème en Occident, mais nous avons intériorisé la peur d’une loi qui n’existe pas.
Jyllands Posten n’a pas publié les caricatures de Charlie Hebdo après les attaques. Pourquoi?
En 2008, après un attentat déjoué contre Kurt Westergaard, tous les journaux danois ont publié des caricatures du Prophète. Puis plus rien. La justification, fallacieuse, a été qu’on les avait publiées souvent…. Quand Kurt Westergaard a failli être assassiné en janvier 2010, personne n’a publié de caricatures, pas même nous. Un autre argument est que nous ne devons pas insulter les sensibilités religieuses d’une minorité vulnérable. Mais cette minorité radicale n’a rien de faible. Ces gens-là sont sacrément puissants pour avoir été capables d’intimider l’espace public en Europe.
«Nous reconnaissons que nous nous soumettons à l’autocensure. L’épée est plus forte que le stylo. Il y a neuf ans, je pensais que c’était l’inverse. Je pensais que notre journal pourrait gagner ce combat.»
Oui, nous n’avons pas publié les caricatures après les attaques, c’est grave et triste. Mais je peux comprendre le rédacteur en chef, après ce que je vis depuis neuf ans. Il pense à la sécurité de ses journalistes. Au moins, nous sommes honnêtes. Nous avons publié un éditorial titré «La violence marche». Nous reconnaissons que nous nous soumettons à l’autocensure. L’épée est plus forte que le stylo. Il y a neuf ans, je pensais que c’était l’inverse. Je pensais que notre journal pourrait gagner ce combat. Mais je sais maintenant que nous avons besoin de beaucoup plus de soutien populaire.
La mobilisation des Français donne-t-il un peu d’espoir?
Je suis très heureux de cette mobilisation. Mais je reste circonspect, car une manifestation ne compte pas à long terme. Ce qui compte, ce sont les décisions au quotidien de chaque journal. Quand Theo Van Gogh a été tué par un extrémiste musulman en 2004, il y a eu une vague de soutien qui s’est essoufflée. On a vu au contraire apparaître, aux Pays-Bas, une pression pour renforcer «les lois contre la propagation d’un discours de haine». Le ministre de la Culture a même dit si que si on avait eu des lois semblables, Theo Van Gogh serait en vie! Sous-entendu, c’était sa faute.
En Amérique, l’on affirme qu’en offensant l’islam, on provoque la violence…
Cette culture de la défense des offensés est devenue centrale dans les cercles académiques américains. Elle est très dangereuse, car elle détruit la distinction fondamentale, depuis les Lumières, entre le mot et l’action. Elle affirme que dire quelque chose d’offensant est aussi grave que commettre un crime violent. Alors qu’une caricature, c’est ce qu’il y a de plus civilisé et pacifique! Cette érosion de la distinction entre mots et actes sape la liberté de parole. Elle nous rapproche des dictatures.
Voir enfin:
EUROPE / ÉTATS-UNIS Qui publie et qui ne publie pas la une du nouveau « Charlie »
- 14 janvier 2015
Des journaux japonais ont publié la une de Charlie Hebdo ce 14 janvier – AFP / Kazuhiro NOGILa une du numéro de Charlie hebdo publié le 14 janvier fait réagir partout dans le monde et pose une question épineuse pour les journaux étrangers : faut-il reproduire le dessin de couverture, une caricature de Mahomet versant une larme et tenant une pancarte “Je suis Charlie” ? “Le choix de republier l’image touche au cœur du débat sur ce qui relève de la liberté d’expression ou bien d’images gratuites que certains lecteurs trouveront offensantes”, écrit The New York Times dans un article sur le sujet.Le quotidien a lui-même choisi de ne pas reproduire la une, se contentant de fournir un lien sur son site. “Nous ne publions pas d’habitude d’images ou d’autres contenus visant délibérément à heurter des sensibilités religieuses”, avance le directeur de la rédaction, Dean Baquet, qui avait déjà préféré ne pas publier les dessins de Charlie Hebdo après l’attentat du 7 janvier. Un choix critiqué comme pusillanime par certains.D’autres titres américains ont choisi une approche différente : The Washington Post a reproduit la couverture après avoir publié une caricature de Mahomet dans ses pages. Le site Buzzfeed, qui a lui-même publié des dessins, critique la décision de plusieurs médias de “censurer” les caricatures, notamment le New York Daily News et le britannique The Daily Telegraph, qui ont flouté ou coupé des unes de Charlie Hebdo.
En première page dans certains titres allemands
En Allemagne, le quotidien de la gauche alternative Die Tageszeitung et l’ancien journal communiste Neues Deutschland ont fait le choix de reproduire à la une la première page du nouveau Charlie Hebdo. On le retrouve également en couverture de certains quotidiens régionaux comme la Saarbrücker Zeitung.
Les grands quotidiens ont préféré, eux, titrer sur le rassemblement à Berlin contre le mouvement anti-islam à Dresde et en hommage aux victimes des attentats de Paris, où se sont retrouvées le 13 janvier les plus hautes autorités politiques et religieuses du pays et quelque 10 000 personnes. Le tabloïd Bild, lui, a réservé sa quatrième de couverture à la une du journal satirique.
Une double dans El País
Dès mardi, le journal espagnol La Razón publiait en couverture la nouvelle une de Charlie Hebdo, choix étonnant pour ce quotidien très conservateur. C’est souvent de façon plus discrète – à l’intérieur de leurs pages ou sur leur site – que les autres quotidiens ibériques ont reproduit cette nouvelle caricature du Prophète, ainsi que d’autres dessins de Charlie Hebdo.
El País a pour sa part publié en pages 2 et 3 la double page centrale du Charlie Hebdo « des survivants », en version espagnole. « Le lecteur aura peut-être du mal à comprendre », justifie le quotidien. « Mais même si le style de Charlie Hebdo ne coïncide en rien avec notre ligne éditoriale, nous défendons son droit à exister en toute liberté. »
Distribué avec un quotidien italien
Dans la plupart des villes italiennes, Charlie Hebdo était distribué le 14 janvier, en français, avec le quotidien Il Fatto Quotidiano. « Nous le faisons d’abord par solidarité avec les victimes de Charlie Hebdo, a expliqué Antonio Padellaro, le directeur d‘Il Fatto Quotidiano, mais aussi pour réaffirmer notre défense absolue de la liberté de la presse. » Au départ, le directeur d’Il Fatto Quotidiano n’était pas favorable au fait de participer à la publication de Charlie Hebdo mais il aurait cédé sous la pression des journalistes de sa rédaction, rapporte le Huffington Post en Italie. Selon Antonio Padellaro, ce numéro de mercredi n’a rien d’offensant.
« Dans le passé, certains dessins ont pu offenser la sensibilité de certains lecteurs – et pas seulement musulmans. En tant que directeur d‘Il Fatto Quotidiano, je ne les aurais pas publiés », a-t-il concédé. Depuis hier soir, la sécurité des locaux du quotidien, à Rome, a été renforcée. Une porte blindée a été installée et une patrouille surveille les entrées.Ceux qui craignent pour leur sécuritéLa question de la sécurité fait partie du débat. Stephan Pollard, directeur du quotidien juif britannique The Jewish Chronicle, s’est exprimé, sur Twitter, contre la publication des dessins. « C’est facile d’attaquer les journaux qui ne les publient pas. Moi je me dis : tous les principes dans lesquels je crois m’incitent à les publier. Mais de quel droit vais-je mettre en danger la vie de mes employés uniquement pour prendre position ? » rapporte The Washington Post.
Même décision de la part du Jyllands-Posten, le quotidien danois dont les dessins du Prophète, en 2005, lui avaient valu la colère du monde musulman. L’ancien responsable des pages culture du journal a indiqué que le Jyllands-Posten avait décidé de ne pas publier la nouvelle caricature par crainte d’être de nouveau pris pour cible, rapporte The New York Times. Il juge pourtant impératif de ne pas céder aux islamistes radicaux.
jcdurbant 
[…] ne pas voir au contraire, comme le rappelait il y a cinq ans une tribune de Foreign policy, que le premier président musulman n’est peut-être pas celui qu’on croit […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’indique pas, était censée réarmer la France, l’Europe et le monde libre (dont le chef, comme par hasard, a à nouveau brillé par son absence) contre la censure islamique et son bras […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] Daily Mail […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] par son absence à Paris contre le terrorisme et se précipite à Ryadh pleurer la perte d’un parrain notoire du […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] où pour ménager tant la rue arabe que nos riches amis saoudiens et qataris, nombre de nos dirigeants comme de nos médias se refusent toujours et même explicitement à appeler la menace islamiste par […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] qu’un prétendu chef de file du Monde libre qui n’avait pas trouvé le temps, entre deux finales de football américain, de venir […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’heure où, devant la pusallinimité du Monde libre et d’abord de son prétendu chef à la Maison blanche […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] le prétendu chef du Monde libre n’a même pas pris la peine de se joindre ni à la Marche de Paris contre le terrorisme ni au 70e anniversaire de la libération d’Auschwitz […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] janvier qui a réuni après les massacres de Charlie et de Hyper cacher et l’Administration Obama exceptée, on s’en souvient, une bonne part des pompiers et pyromanes de la planète […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] après la Marche républicaine de Paris, le prétendu chef du Monde libre a à nouveau brillé par son absence […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’absence remarquée de tout officiel américain de premier plan tant à la Marche de Paris qu’au 70e anniversaire de la libération d’Auschwitz […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] qu’après ses absences tant à Paris qu’à Auschwitz et avoir contre toute évidence mis en doute les mobiles antisémites du […]
J’aimeJ’aime
How Obama Opened His Heart to the ‘Muslim World’
And got it stomped on. Israel’s former ambassador to the United States on the president’s naiveté as peacemaker, blinders to terrorism, and alienation of allies.
Michael Oren
Foreign policy
June 19, 2015
Days after jihadi gunmen slaughtered 11 staffers of the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a policeman on January 7, hundreds of thousands of French people marched in solidarity against Islamic radicalism. Forty-four world leaders joined them, but not President Barack Obama. Neither did his attorney general at the time, Eric Holder, or Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, both of whom were in Paris that day. Other terrorists went on to murder four French Jews in a kosher market that they deliberately targeted. Yet Obama described the killers as “vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.”
Pressed about the absence of a high-ranking American official at the Paris march, the White House responded by convening a long-delayed convention on “countering violent extremism.” And when reminded that one of the gunmen boasted that he intended to kill Jews, presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the victims died “not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”
Obama’s boycotting of the memorial in Paris, like his refusal to acknowledge the identity of the perpetrators, the victims, or even the location of the market massacre, provides a broad window into his thinking on Islam and the Middle East. Simply put: The president could not participate in a protest against Muslim radicals whose motivations he sees as a distortion, rather than a radical interpretation, of Islam. And if there are no terrorists spurred by Islam, there can be no purposely selected Jewish shop or intended Jewish victims, only a deli and randomly present folks.
Understanding Obama’s worldview was crucial to my job as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Right after entering office in June 2009, I devoted months to studying the new president, poring over his speeches, interviews, press releases, and memoirs, and meeting with many of his friends and supporters. The purpose of this self-taught course — Obama 101, I called it — was to get to the point where the president could no longer surprise me. And over the next four years I rarely was, especially on Muslim and Middle Eastern issues.
“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama declared in his first inaugural address. The underlying assumption was that America’s previous relations with Muslims were characterized by dissention and contempt. More significant, though, was the president’s use of the term “Muslim world,” a rough translation of the Arabic ummah. A concept developed by classical Islam, ummah refers to a community of believers that transcends borders, cultures, and nationalities. Obama not only believed that such a community existed but that he could address and accommodate it.
The novelty of this approach was surpassed only by Obama’s claim that he, personally, represented the bridge between this Muslim world and the West. Throughout the presidential campaign, he repeatedly referred to his Muslim family members, his earlier ties to Indonesia and the Muslim villages of Kenya, and his Arabic first and middle names. Surveys taken shortly after his election indicated that nearly a quarter of Americans thought their president was a Muslim.
This did not deter him from actively pursuing his bridging role. Reconciling with the Muslim world was the theme of the president’s first television interview — with Dubai’s Al Arabiya — and his first speech abroad. “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” he told the Turkish Parliament in April 2009. “America’s relationship with the Muslim community … cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism.… We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.” But the fullest exposition of Obama’s attitude toward Islam, and his personal role in assuaging its adherents, came three months later in Cairo.
Billed by the White House as “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World,” the speech was delivered to a hall of carefully selected Egyptian students. But the message was not aimed at them or even at the people of Egypt, but rather at all Muslims. “America and Islam are not exclusive,” the president determined. “[They] share … common principles — principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
With multiple quotes from the Quran — each enthusiastically applauded — the president praised Islam’s accomplishments and listed colonialism, the Cold War, and modernity among the reasons for friction between Muslims and the West.
With multiple quotes from the Quran — each enthusiastically applauded — the president praised Islam’s accomplishments and listed colonialism, the Cold War, and modernity among the reasons for friction between Muslims and the West. “Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims,” he explained, in the only reference to the religious motivation of most terrorists. And he again cited his personal ties with Islam which, he said, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”
These pronouncements presaged what was, in fact, a profound recasting of U.S. policy. While reiterating America’s support for Israel’s security, Obama stridently criticized its settlement policy in the West Bank and endorsed the Palestinian claim to statehood. He also recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, upheld the principle of nonproliferation, and rejected former President George W. Bush’s policy of promoting American-style democracy in the Middle East. “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” he said. “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” In essence, Obama offered a new deal in which the United States would respect popularly chosen Muslim leaders who were authentically rooted in their traditions and willing to engage with the West.
The Cairo speech was revolutionary. In the past, Western leaders had addressed the followers of Islam — Napoleon in invading Egypt in 1798 and Kaiser Wilhelm II while visiting Damascus a century later — but never before had an American president. Indeed, no president had ever spoken to adherents of a world faith, whether Catholics or Buddhists, and in a city they traditionally venerated. More significantly, the Cairo speech, twice as long as his inaugural address, served as the foundational document of Obama’s policy toward Muslims.
Whenever Israeli leaders were perplexed by the administration’s decision to restore diplomatic ties with Syria — severed by Bush after the assassination of Lebanese president Rafik Hariri — or its early outreach to Libya and Iran, I would always refer them to that text. When policymakers back home failed to understand why Obama stood by Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who imprisoned journalists and backed Islamic radicals, or Mohamed Morsi, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and briefly its president, I would invariably say: “Go back to the speech.” Erdogan and Morsi were both devout Muslims, democratically elected, and accepting of Obama’s outstretched hand. So, too, was Hassan Rouhani, who became Obama’s partner in seeking a negotiated settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute.
How did the president arrive at his unique approach to Islam? The question became central to my research for Obama 101. One answer lies in the universities in which he studied and taught — Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Chicago — and where such ideas were long popular. Many of them could be traced to Orientalism, Edward Said’s scathing critique of Middle East studies, and subsequent articles in which he insisted that all scholars of the region be “genuinely engaged and sympathetic … to the Islamic world.” Published in 1978, Orientalism became the single most influential book in American humanities. As a visiting lecturer in the United States starting in the 1980s, I saw how Said’s work influenced not only Middle East studies but became a mainstay of syllabi for courses ranging from French colonial literature to Italian-African history. The notion that Islam was a uniform, universal entity with which the West must peacefully engage became widespread on American campuses and eventually penetrated the policymaking community. One of the primary texts in my Obama 101 course was the 2008 monograph, “Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy,” written by foreign-relations experts, many of whom would soon hold senior positions in the new administration. While striving to place its relations with the Middle East on a new basis, the authors advised, America must seek “improved relations with more moderate elements of political Islam” and adapt “a narrative of pride in the achievements of Islam.”
In addition to its academic and international affairs origins, Obama’s attitudes toward Islam clearly stem from his personal interactions with Muslims. These were described in depth in his candid memoir, Dreams from My Father, published 13 years before his election as president. Obama wrote passionately of the Kenyan villages where, after many years of dislocation, he felt most at home and of his childhood experiences in Indonesia. I could imagine how a child raised by a Christian mother might see himself as a natural bridge between her two Muslim husbands. I could also speculate how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists.
Yet, tragically perhaps, Obama — and his outreach to the Muslim world — would not be accepted. With the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the vision of a United States at peace with the Muslim Middle East was supplanted by a patchwork of policies — military intervention in Libya, aerial bombing in Iraq, indifference to Syria, and entanglement with Egypt. Drone strikes, many of them personally approved by the president, killed hundreds of terrorists, but also untold numbers of civilians. Indeed, the killing of a Muslim — Osama bin Laden — rather than reconciling with one, remains one of Obama’s most memorable achievements.
Diplomatically, too, Obama’s outreach to Muslims was largely rebuffed. During his term in office, support for America among the peoples of the Middle East — and especially among Turks and Palestinians — reached an all-time nadir. Back in 2007, President Bush succeeded in convening Israeli and Arab leaders, together with the representatives of some 40 states, at the Annapolis peace conference. In May 2015, Obama had difficulty convincing several Arab leaders to attend a Camp David summit on the Iranian issue. The president who pledged to bring Arabs and Israelis together ultimately did so not through peace, but out of their common anxiety over his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his determination to reach a nuclear accord with Iran.
Only Iran, in fact, still holds out the promise of sustaining Obama’s initial hopes for a fresh start with Muslims. “[I]f we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion,” he told the New Yorker, “you could see an equilibrium developing between [it and] Sunni … Gulf states.” The assumption that a nuclear deal with Iran will render it “a very successful regional power” capable of healing, rather than inflaming, historic schisms remained central to Obama’s thinking. That assumption was scarcely shared by Sunni Muslims, many of whom watched with deep concern at what they perceived as an emerging U.S.-Iranian alliance.
Six years after offering to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” President Obama has seen that hand repeatedly shunned by Muslims. His speeches no longer recall his Muslim family members, and only his detractors now mention his middle name. And yet, to a remarkable extent, his policies remain unchanged. He still argues forcibly for the right of Muslim women to wear — rather than refuse to wear — the veil and insists on calling “violent extremists” those who kill in Islam’s name. “All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam,” he declared in February, using an acronym for the Islamic State. The term “Muslim world” is still part of his vocabulary.
Historians will likely look back at Obama’s policy toward Islam with a combination of curiosity and incredulousness. While some may credit the president for his good intentions, others might fault him for being naïve and detached from a complex and increasingly lethal reality. For the Middle East continues to fracture and pose multiple threats to America and its allies. Even if he succeeds in concluding a nuclear deal with Iran, the expansion of the Islamic State and other jihadi movements will underscore the failure of Obama’s outreach to Muslims. The need to engage them — militarily, culturally, philanthropically, and even theologically — will meanwhile mount. The president’s successor, whether Democrat or Republican, will have to grapple with that reality from the moment she or he enters the White House. The first decision should be to recognize that those who kill in Islam’s name are not mere violent extremists but fanatics driven by a specific religion’s zeal. And their victims are anything but random.
J’aimeJ’aime