Hate him, or love him, but this message is greatly appreciated by yours truly and very cleverly crafted by the Obama administration.
I know quite a number of staunch anti-US friends who softened down their stance significantly after Obama’s speech in Cairo.
It worked.
And this without a doubt will go even further in softening more Muslim peoples’ stubborn sentiments.
Here’s the full video:
And to all my Muslim readers, Ramadan Kareem.
Yes, even naughty heretics can appreciate this spiritual and introspective time of the year. 
Have a good one!
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m not a big fan of US administration and foreign policy, but yes this was a nice gesture. Ramadan kareem
I wonder if there will EVER be a positive gesture from the Muslim world.
Indeed, when we will ever see a positive gesture from the muslim world?
There are plenty of positive gestures from individuals such as bloggers. And millions of Muslims have moved to Europe and America over the past few decades: immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.
Positive gestures from leaders are less likely. Turkey joining NATO is a possible example. Another is Wafic Said’s big donation to the business school at Oxford.
But in general, Muslim leaders act as though any positive gestures toward the rest of the world are something to be ashamed of. Like most Muslims, they act as though they expect to be punished at any moment.
‘And millions of Muslims have moved to Europe and America over the past few decades: immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.’
I don’t know about that Don. Do you think that the French felt flattered during the riots in the Muslim areas? Do you think that the Canadiens feel flattered to have screams for Sharia Laws to be enacted there? Do you think that the British feel flattered to have parts of their country turned into Little Pakistan? I, as an American might feel flattered if they wanted to live here, permanently (as opposed to just coming to make a bunch of money to take ‘home’ to retire) and actually integrate into the wider community.
‘Like most Muslims, they act as though they expect to be punished at any moment’
huh? They do? How’d I miss that with the Iranian Imanutjob or Saddam Hussein?
Lynn…
I think you kind of mis-read what Don was trying to say.
Of course we always have to talk in generalities. Muslims are humans…period. They represent a full range of goodness and flaws etc.
With that said…did the cultural and political and social aspects of Islam, in general, take a real bad turn somewhere down the line of history? Yes.
Muslim religious, cultural and political leadership and a good chunk of “the street” have contributed precious little in terms of making the world a better place for many centuries now.
And many of the bright lights that “could be” tend to be smashed down in most sections of Muslim society.
This is a tragedy that has many origins, but now primarily has its own self to blame. ..but fighting back can come at a very large price…anybody notice Iran lately?
I don’t know what Obama said…I don’t care for the guy. I think he is prepetuating the destruction of the American economy which began with that moron Bush. But if he wants to say nice stuff to Muslim people, which Bush also did at times to be fair, I see nothing but good in that.
But yes…were are the voices from the other side? Check out who we are waiting on; Ahmenidenijad, Assad, Khadaffi, al-Bashir, the House of Saud, Yemen …and other similar progressives.
Don’t hold your collective breath.
“House of Saud”
I will never get used to the idea that those thieves are a “royal family” and a “House of”.
AB…
Den of Saud
“I will never get used to the idea that those thieves are a “royal family” and a “House of”.”
Isn’t every royal family descended from some thief, gangster or warlord? - some ruthless character who fought his way to the top.
“Isn’t every royal family descended from some thief, gangster or warlord? - some ruthless character who fought his way to the top.”
Not necessarily.
Some royal families descent from someone who was honestly accepted by his people as a wise ruler for reasons other than his ability to cheat and steal from them.
Other royal families have also since earned their royal status by their behaviour.
I’ll accept King David as royal because I believe he was made king not only by G-d’s will but also because his people wanted him to be their king. I accept the British royal family because they have watched over one of the greatest democracies in the world and certainly didn’t screw over their own people. I accept the Hashemite royal family because they descend from the tribe of Muhammed and derive their legitimacy from him (i.e. as long as Muhammed is clean, they are clean).
But the Saudis are just “kings” of Nejd and had no business stealing the Kingdom of Hejaz from the Hashemites and have since then and before only brought grief and terror to the world. “Their” own people, unless you count women as people, are not really oppressed by them, but only because the Saudis have the oil money, derived again from the value of oil generated by western inventions like the car engine that needs oil.
I accept the former Shah of Iran as royal because I think his influence on the world was rather positive all-in-all (especially during World War II and when it came to religious tolerance and women’s rights). The same goes for the former king of Egypt and the emperor of Ethiopia (who excelled in almost everything he did and was an example for the rest of humanity who should have learned more from him). I accept the king of Morocco.
I’ll even accept small kings and emirs of small Arab emirates for no reason other that they don’t annoy me much.
But the Saudis have been and remain thieves.
They are not a “house of”, they are a “family” in the same sense that the Sicilian mafia is.
‘I think you kind of mis-read what Don was trying to say.’
I did? He didn’t say that the Muslims immigrating to a country is a form of flattery to the country? Don’t flatter me by telling me that my house is so great that you want to live in it and then, after you’ve moved in, start trying to change things to be just like it was at your old house.
Lynn…
You are saying two different things…
But I will let Don defend himself…he does not pay me enough to do it for him.
Perhaps “flattery” derives from “flatten”?
“Ramadan is the month of hypocrisy”…. I did not say this… it was the title cover of a moroccan weekly magazine Nichane, which was banned by the king of morocco not because of the article about Ramadhan (because everyone knows it is true) but it was banned because of the results of a survey asking Moroccan to rate their King….
Ramadhan has nothing spiritual about it. It is about consumption, food and sweets and music concerts….. Of course they are those who take it upon themselves to read the Koran, pray daily and abstained from sex and carnal desires and thoughts…. but for the majority of the masses it is just like nothing had happen …. Muslims should take a lesson or two from the Tibetian if they want to learn something about spirituality…..
lynn,
I can understand French or British aggression. however, wasen’t American founded by migrants not Muslims ones. never the less migrants. So, Muslim Americans have as much righst as non- Muslim Americans regarding their religion.
Not to mention the fact that religious tolerance was crucial factor in the founding America as a nation. How come Muslim migrants, didn’t bother ordinary Americans like your self 10 years ago?
“I accept the British royal family because they have watched over one of the greatest democracies in the world and certainly didn’t screw over their own people.”
Yet they were greedy even to screw over and mess up other nations and countries in the name of “Great Britain Empire.”
I disagree with the idea that the British Empire was all-in-all a bad thing. It’s easy to point the finger.
But the fact is that many countries were less civilised than the United Kingdom and that the British Empire brought more good to the world than bad. Very few of the former British colonies are now actually doing better than when they were still colonies, and those that do better or as well as usually still nominally part of what remains of the Empire.
I have no problem with imperialism as such. And I know many nations in Europe who would have loved to be ruled by the British Empire rather than the Russians or Germans. To some people, others people’s nightmare seem like dreams. It’s all relative.
I also don’t consider replacing British rule with a native dictator (or an Arab dictator) an improvement, neither economically nor morally.
My problem with imperial is merely two-fold. I do believe that an empire only has legitimacy if it actually improves the lot of the peoples it rules in some way, which the British Empire often did. And I am extremely upset that for some reason the Arab League, which represents Arab governments ruling over so many non-Arab peoples is not considered an “empire”.
Most Indians I know are not full of hatred for the English or English culture. In fact most Indians I know are now more British than the English and I think the culture of the British Empire is more likely to survive in India than it is in the UK which is degenerating fast again after temporary comebacks under Thatcher and Blair.
The British Empire ended slavery world-wide. I consider that the single-greatest achievement of humanity in history. If that doesn’t make a king, what does?
Why on earth are you guys ranting and babbling talking about the British Empire and Saudi royal family? Isn’t the topic about Ramadhan? Are you some history channel buffs or am I blind?
Saudi royal family…. what is it to you Andrew? Why bring this scruffy retrograde made up family into the discussion about Obama wishing well muslims about Ramadhan. I know they are important….right?? shit so what??? STICK TO THE TOPIC….WRITE ABOUT RAMADHAN AND ITS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE EITHER BAD OR GOOD IT DOES NOT MATTER … BUT FOR GOD SAKE SKIP YOU RUBBISH HISTORAL ACCOUNT OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND STUPID ROYAL SAUDI FAMILY….. IT HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS THREAD….
You are absolutely correct. I apologise. The Saudis have nothing to do with Ramadan.
As usual I messed up the dates this year and thought Ramadan started a day early, which it did for some Muslims, but not the Pakistanis here in Ireland, who follow Meccan definitions.
Plus it turned out that our (also Pakistani) security guard in the office grew up in Kuwait and was actually in Iraq in 1991. We exchanged stories.
I am saying that the founders of dynasties are typically rogues; their descendents may be respectable, or even benevolent; but they still collect taxes from their victims, and live in palaces at other people’s expense.
There may be examples of a king being chosen freely by “his” people, but this sounds more like winner’s propaganda to me. (Think how popular Ghaddafi would appear to be if you had only his own records to go by.)
King David I will leave aside as I think he is a legendary or semi-legendary character like King Arthur in Britain.
If you emigrate from your homeland to some other country, you are saying that you think the destination is a better country to live in. Considering the struggle involved in any immigration, that has to be a sincere opinion.
Don,
I have no problem with them living in palaces. It’s the holier-than-thou hypocritical form of heretical Islam that the Saudis practice that makes them unfit as kings in my opinion.
King David, whether legendary or not is a real example since he is certainly appreciated as a historical king by millions today, all of whom voluntarily accept his claim to ancient Israelite kingship. THAT’s what makes him a real king, even if he never existed.
Howie,
What exactly are the two different things that I am saying?
‘If you emigrate from your homeland to some other country, you are saying that you think the destination is a better country to live in’
Don, I am asking if this is still true if the person that moves to another country can do nothing but praise ‘the old country’ and attempts to replicate what he had in his original country in his new country? How about if they only plan on staying until they can save up enough money to go back home and live as kings?How about if they never make an attempt to learn the language? How about if after they have children they send them back ‘home’ to be raised there and learn their parent’s culture there? What if they don’t allow their children to interact with the ‘native’ children of their adopted home?
I have personally known people like this that have immigrated to the US.
Curious too,
What makes you think that Muslim immigrants bother ordinary Americans any more than they did 10 years ago?
Muslim immigrants absolutely have as much right as any other American regarding the practice of their religion. I never suggested that they shouldn’t. That is, as long as they are not violating the rights of anyone else or going against the oath that they make upon acceptance of American citizenship which says ‘…that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…’
“I don’t know about that Don. Do you think that the French felt flattered during the riots in the Muslim areas? ”
Ma chère Lynn you lisen too much to the MSM
The riots aren’t specifically a muslim problem by us, but a YOUTH problem, that has no marks, that is UNEDUCATED, that is under drugs addictments, just like in the american surburbs
Now the radical muslims that are a real threat are “educated”, they manipulate opinions through the web, in mosquees, in JAILS, like in America’s,
you should check your blogs about the subject, I got a listing if you need it
This YOUTH problem will not be solve in the decade, unless we get into a big international conflict, it will go onto the front as tank meat, like each former generation did it by us, before, but it’s an universal law, wars solve YOUTH rebellions
Drima,
Yipes!! There’s another Sheema lurking around who reads your blog!!!
I just got back from liberal London, where nobody really gives a rat’s ass what you do, to a Malaysia where a woman is to be caned after being caught drinking alcohol, Selangor state has just passed a law banning the sale of alcohol to Muslims (yes apparently they will check your identity card first before selling to you now), and I have to sneak around during lunchtime to avoid getting arrested for eating in public. Talk about culture shock.
I’m not feeling in a very kareem mood right now!
“I have to sneak around during lunchtime to avoid getting arrested for eating in public.”
In Kurdistan restaurants were open during Ramadan last year and were shielded with posters against people on the street looking in. Lots people were eating.
If you were found eating on the street outside a Christian quarter, the police would ask you for your religion. And if you were Muslim, they’d give you a warning. Next offence would see you before a judge. Christians were apparently allowed to eat and drink in public on the street, as was I.
Perhaps people need to be reminded that fasting is a duty one has to G-d, not to the government. I find the Kurdish solution rather ingenious.
“Perhaps people need to be reminded that fasting is a duty one has to G-d, not to the government. I find the Kurdish solution rather ingenious.”
The problem is when people start thinking that religion needs to be enforced. Or when you’re not even given a choice in the first place what religion you want, or whether you even want one to begin with.
Having a separate set of laws for Muslims - especially when they’re stuck with their religion and can’t even opt out - is plain discrimination.
“Having a separate set of laws for Muslims - especially when they’re stuck with their religion and can’t even opt out - is plain discrimination.”
Of course it is. I am just saying, even that can be handled differently. And I thought the Kurdish way was good.
All-in-all this thing where you cannot opt out of Islam is the problem.
You know…if our religions were so freaking wonderful…how come they have ALWAYS had to be enforced by the “government”…whatever that government was at the time.
The government having the right to enforce is another question…and man I do care about religion and man do I HATE the idea of religious people getting mixed up in government.
I am pretty moderate…but I am an extremist overall when it comes to separation of church and state…
Howie, I think there are two levels of government interference in religious matters.
One is to force people to follow a religion, whether their own or the government-sponsored one. The other is to force people to allow those who want to follow a religion to do so.
The law in Kurdistan that forces restaurants to make sure that nobody can see anyone eating during Ramadan from the street is certainly of the second type.
And then there is the problem about religious law being real law, traditionally.
While the Torah prohibits murder, the secular state of Israel certainly enforces a similar law, despite the fact that in doing so it is channeling a specific religion.
At what point should state law and religious law be different?
A whole lot of law is based on religious law…that part is inseparable…
But the government doing stuff like:
Enforcing dress codes
Laws against homosexulity
Laws against certain kinds of artistic expression
Circumstances you can marry under
What you are allowed to do on certain holidays
Oh…you know these things and I could go on and on and on…
Of course there is a balance point and I don’t mind some healthy back-and-forth tension…like in any healthy society…
But if I am going to err…I will err on the side where the public has more input, the servants have some degree of accountability to the people they make laws for (religious folk have VERY little accountantability to the people that are making decisions for)
I guess the difference should be not between state and religion but between stuff you do to yourself and stuff you do to others.
But you are right about the accountability problem with religious leaders. Maybe they should be elected like other politicians, if necessary from among learned candidates?
Marie Claude,
Are the Muslims (that rioted) concentrated in certain areas by nationality/religion or are they integrated into the broader French communities? Were they living in France or ‘Little Pakistan’? Was French their most spoken language?
I have never in my life seen an American suburban (or urban for that matter) drug addict in a riot. Never. Drug addicts do not riot. lol
Drug addicts do, however, go to jail where they may get ’saved’ and become Muslim and THEN they might riot. lol
the surburbs as you should know are around big cities, Paris’s belt, Lyon’s Belt, Lille’s Belt, Marseille’ sbelt…
immigration aglutinated there, mostly from our former colonies,also from Asia, from former Yougoslavia, and eastern republics, also some Iranians, Afghans…
So you can’t define it by one religion, it’s a mixture of them, muslims are more numerous though.
Their concentration in “ghettoised surburbs make the problem, no enterprise want to settle there, unless they have advantageous subventions.
This rebel youth represents only 10% of the whole immigrant population, but medias like to focuse on them, a bit less since Sarkozy was elected, cuz the fact that you put them ahead, make the domino escalation, every hot point want to get cameras.
Also, Problems were/are related to their young age, under 18 they were not emprisonned, not true anymore, a law has been voted, so that teens can also be injailed.
and some fermety , at the very beginning of a youth explosion police and gendarmes are deployed and make a “quadrillage”, also populations there begon to express their ” fed up” of being threatened a a minority of scums.
So, it ain’t a paradisiac situation, but it’s slowly improving
drugs problems is because of the lack of empois, and it’s an easy money
I’m sorry but the US have these problems too among the black and latin immigration, at least it’s what I often read on “conservative blogs”
Marie Claude ‘Their concentration in “ghettoised surburbs make the problem, no enterprise want to settle there, unless they have advantageous subventions. ‘
That was my point, pretty much. They are concentrated in one area with others of the same nationality/religion rather than integrating with the French community. Do they willingly choose to live there so they can be with people like themselves? Or are they ‘assigned’ to live there and are unable to move to another neighborhood?
Also, I do NOT deny that we have people who are addicted to drugs in the US, we also have drug dealers and gang problems. All I was saying is that they don’t typically riot. Drug addicts are usually more concerned with where they are going to get their next fix to consider rioting.
I don’t understand why they even move to France if they are so happy with living among their own people.
Marie Claude: “wars solve YOUTH rebellions”
Only if they would have been killed. I doubt that’s a solution we’re looking for.
I admire President Obanm’s wisdom in reaching out to the Muslim world. His Cairo speech, in context and substance was visionary and inspiribg and historic. The Muslim world heard for the first time a US President diffrentiate between Islam as a great peaceful religion and terrorist usurping the name of Islam
” The Muslim world heard for the first time a US President diffrentiate between Islam as a great peaceful religion and terrorist usurping the name of Islam”
George Bush did that constantly and the Muslim world didn’t care.
It wasn’t the US that didn’t differentiate between Islam as a “great peaceful religion” and terrorists. It was the Muslim world.
American officials and the president didn’t say that all Muslims are like Al-Qaeda or Hamas. But many, many Muslims said that Muslims must support those groups because they are “Islamic”.
If the Muslim world were eight years faster, we could have settled this in 2001.
Here is President Bush’s Ramadan greeting from 2002. If you like US presidents talking about Islam as if it were a peaceful religion, you’ll love this:
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2002/November/20021106094816Kurata@pd.state.gov0.1797296.html
Hey there Drima
it’s been a while indeed. How have you been?
Drop me a line at my email address, let me know how it is all going
Rara Avis
‘The Muslim world heard for the first time a US President diffrentiate between Islam as a great peaceful religion and terrorist usurping the name of Islam’
How very unfortunate that the Muslim world was not listening before because as Andrew has shown, it’s just not true.
Do they willingly choose to live there so they can be with people like themselves
not really, they would prefer to live in cities centers, but it’s too expensive, even for the nationals, so banks, international stores labels tend to replace traditional habits
It’s also the fault of the lefty administrations that delt with habitations, it was easier for them to regroup people of same cultural background in the same aeras, they need these persons as cheap work force and as voters
thee ideal city organisation of the 19th century is forgotten When Hausmann redraw Paris boulvevard and building he thought of mixing populations in one building, rez-de chaussée for store, 1rs level for bourgeoises, 2nd level for middle class, 3rd, lower middle class… last level for the poors, and under the roofs, rooms for the “domestic servants”
The problem of money makes what was making a city lively, is transforming these cities into museums or places for bourgeois bohemes (often of the left part) that don’t like to melt with people under their condition
It is funny that that is precisely these bourgeois that call for immigration low cost labor, and that they don’t want to feel and or see these immigants noise and colors, and don’t obviously fear anti-semitism, like the middle and working class people who live among
The Muslim world makes up its mind first, and then looks at the facts. It’s unfortunate, and it’s against what their religion teaches them, but that’s it.
There is a difference between Islam and terrorism. It’s an ironic twist of history that George W. Bush saw it and many self-proclaimed Muslims didn’t.
To find that after 8 years of yearly Ramadan messages from a president who very strictly fought on the side of some Muslims (like the Kurds and the Afghani Northern Alliance) against those people who murder Muslims (like Saddam Hussein and the Taliban), there are people out there who didn’t get any of that is like discovering that some people really do live under rocks.
A president who doesn’t differentiate between Islam and terrorism would not ally with Muslims to fight terrorists.
You can say, of course, that the Kurds and Northern Alliance are not “real Muslims” and that Baathists and the Taliban are, but then I have to ask whether YOU, in fact, can see the difference between Islam and terrorism. Because if those murderers are “Muslims”, I would support any president who would dare to tell the truth about that “Islam” and I would do anything to fight such a religion.
A real Muslim does not require poison gas for his good works. A real Muslim does not hunt down Africans to murder or enslave them. And a real Muslim does not beat women.
So, yes, there is a difference between Muslims and terrorists. And George W. Bush saw it. But from what I read about Obama’s Cairo speech, I am not sure if he does.
Leave a Comment