In a televised address on how to address the Islamic State this evening, President Barack Obama declared the organization variously known as ISIS or ISIL to be �not Islamic.�
In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children �a terrible perversion of Islam.� George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents �violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.�
None of the three has any basis for such assertions. To state the obvious: As non-Muslims and politicians, rather than Muslims and scholars, they are in no position to declare what is Islamic and what is not. As Bernard Lewis, a leading American authority of Islam, notes: �It is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.�
Indeed, Obama compounds his predecessors� errors and goes further: Clinton and Bush merely described certain actions (treatment of women and children, acts of violence against innocents) as un-Islamic, but Obama has dared to declare an entire organization (and quasi-state) to be �not Islamic.�
The only good thing about this idiocy? At least it�s better than the formulation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) which has the nerve to call the Islamic State �anti-Islamic.�
In the end, though, neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that the Islamic State, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic. And most Westerners, as indicated by detailed polling in Europe, do have eyes and ears. Over time, they are increasingly relying on common sense to conclude that the group is indeed profoundly Islamic.
In making this preposterous claim, Obama joins his two immediate predecessors in pronouncing on what is not Islamic. Bill Clinton called the Taliban treatment of women and children �a terrible perversion of Islam.� George W. Bush deemed that 9/11 and other acts of violence against innocents �violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.�
None of the three has any basis for such assertions. To state the obvious: As non-Muslims and politicians, rather than Muslims and scholars, they are in no position to declare what is Islamic and what is not. As Bernard Lewis, a leading American authority of Islam, notes: �It is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.�
Indeed, Obama compounds his predecessors� errors and goes further: Clinton and Bush merely described certain actions (treatment of women and children, acts of violence against innocents) as un-Islamic, but Obama has dared to declare an entire organization (and quasi-state) to be �not Islamic.�
The only good thing about this idiocy? At least it�s better than the formulation by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (known as CAIR) which has the nerve to call the Islamic State �anti-Islamic.�
In the end, though, neither U.S. presidents nor Islamist apologists fool people. Anyone with eyes and ears realizes that the Islamic State, like the Taliban and al-Qaeda before it, is 100 percent Islamic. And most Westerners, as indicated by detailed polling in Europe, do have eyes and ears. Over time, they are increasingly relying on common sense to conclude that the group is indeed profoundly Islamic.
![[Linked Image]](http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e98/watch4bear/10671214_581838731922914_8776369831641301221_n_zps9cea0a37.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://s940.photobucket.com/user/janiepwhite/media/DSC00377_zps69a4e66f.jpg.html)