Saturday, October 24, 2009


From Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger:


"I don't regret anything I said," she said. "My regret is that I went on the show."

Barack Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood.

President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed, has provoked controversy by appearing on a British television show hosted by a member of an extremist group to talk about Sharia Law. Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".
  • NOPE.

More here.


Damien said...


Off course Obama might think that this just some way he can appease Jihadists, without having to fight them. Its also possible that he does not really understand what Sharia is.

Pastorius said...

I think it is almost impossible to believe Obama does not know what Sharia is. He just probably thinks he can create a kinder, gentler Sharia.

However, as Geert Wilders said in that talk at Temple, every Muslim country in the world lacks Freedom.

Sharia, no matter how lenient (because it is more lenient in some countries) ultimately leads to lack of freedom.

That's that.

Damien said...


Most certainly. Any Sharia is a threat to liberty.

revereridesagain said...

Of course he knows what Sharia is, he was raised as a Muslim for several years in Indonesia.

What he is counting on is that not enough other people in this country have even the beginning of a clue what Sharia is. So this is an opportunity for education that we can't afford to let pass.

There is no, ah sez NO, version of Sharia that I would ever consider kinder, gentler, or lenient. Hell, I haven't even had the stomach to tie a scarf around my head since 9/11/01.

Damien said...

Revere Rides Again,

I understand how you feel, and I pretty much agree with it.

Damien said...

Revere Rides Again,

Any compromise with Sharia, no matter how small will be giving in.

Pastorius said...

You said: There is no, ah sez NO, version of Sharia that I would ever consider kinder, gentler, or lenient. Hell, I haven't even had the stomach to tie a scarf around my head since 9/11/01.

I say: Yeah, I agree. Even if it were decent at first, it can swing in degrees and at times of pressure.

As Wilders said, there is no Islamic country which it truly free. That ought to tell us everything we need to know.

revereridesagain said...

Well, for starters, it's religious law. That already violates my rights. American Constitutional law is based on the nature of human beings and the requirement of law to conform to that nature. "Nature's God" is close enough. The point is, they did not start with someone's "commandments", not even the Ten. They declared the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness first. Sharia is based on "what Allah says". Since I don't believe in Allah, those claiming to speak for him can go pound sand. They have no right whatever to tell my what I can and cannot do about anything, anytime, anywhere. (Yes, I have to obey the rules if I find myself in Saudi Arabia. I've become quite attached to my head.)

People easily fall into the "lenient" argument. Here in New England we've been arguing about whether and how long the liquor stores can stay open on Sundays like forever. Before that it was businesses in general. A lot of people argued that the "Blue Laws" were nice because they gave us all a chance to rest up on Sundays. True enough, but they were still a violation of rights. Now we don't have them any more and the world has not come to an end.

But since most people in this country are totally ignorant of Sharia, they are open to being cajoled into thinking it's "benign". That Mogahed can get away with claiming our view of Sharia is "oversimplified" and can stand there with her teeth in her mouth and say "women around the world associate it with gender justice" is a danger signal.

Always On Watch said...

RRA said:

What he is counting on is that not enough other people in this country have even the beginning of a clue what Sharia is.

I agree.

And apparently BHO intends to keep the American people ignorant of it and its threat as well.

Epaminondas said...

The BBC, Sky News, the Telegraph and the WaPo are now banned from all interviews with WH personnel.

They are not real news organizations and act as research arms for the republican party, who are the enemy of mankind.

DOG BITES MAN, by now.

I have callouses on my fingertips from typing about those people, callouses on my lips from talking about them, and callouses on my cerebral cortex.

We need to see people like Ben Nelson, Bayh and Begich move away PUBLICLY from the administration...

Just sick of having every single warning about this man and all those people BE TRUE.

Th emonute this person heard hte name Hizb ul Tahrir she should have walked out.

That she did not tells all about her priorities.

Damien said...


If they know about this, and they're not pure emotion driven cultist, or ruled by blind hatred for conservatives, they're probably regretting the fact that they voted for the guy, like many other Americans.

Pastorius said...

Are you kidding me?

That escaped my attention. Sky News, the WaPo, the Telegraph and the BBC are all pretty mainstream.

I had noticed that the Telegraph seemed to have become pretty anti-Obama, but from my perspective that just mean they were telling the truth.

Epaminondas said...



revereridesagain said...

Epa, I know what you mean. It's getting to the point where I think I'm starting to hate everyone in my town. And you know how much I love my town. But I went to some church rummage sale this morning that I go to twice a year and the parking lot was full of Obama and COEXIST and peace sign bumper stickers and suddenly I felt like my mother said she did back when she was living in Atlanta and wanted to run down Peachtree Street yelling, "My name is Sherman, has anyone got a match?!"

revereridesagain said...

Would someone please dump the double post and this one for me? Sorry.

mah29001 said...

I wonder what Charles Johnson thinks about the Obama adviser also ending up on a television network owned by an Islamist group banned in many countries? has more on that. Why do secular Lefties like Johnson care more about bashing those whom are only religious when it comes to Christianity?

Do they just hate Christians more?

Pastorius said...

We can't figure out CJ any better than you.

Pastorius said...

"My name is Sherman, has anyone got a match."

I love that.

You're gonna run down the street screaming, "The Muslims and their Leftist Dhimmi enablers are coming."

And, everyone's gonna be like, "Wah? We no can know what you, uh, say ..."

andre79 said...

A foray into "moderate Muslim" skull: I'm not sorry I want Sharia, I'm only sorry I said it out loud on TV.

Anonymous said...

Why on Earth would anyone want a taqiyya spewing muslim as an advisor on muslim affairs, when there are numerous, perfectly suitable, NON-MUSLIM advisors available to help bone up on the subject of Islam?

Obvious examples include: Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Walid Phares, Raymond Ibrahim, etc.

Each of these individuals could and would deliver advice qualitatively superior to that of a dozen Mogaheds, stacked vertically, or laid out all in a row.

Damien said...


For one thing, think of how controversial that would be. Plus think of how enraged Muslim leaders would be at Obama if he appointed someone from the anti Jihad movement. Those two reasons alone can at least partly explain Obama's decision to appoint her.

Epaminondas said...

I agree Damien. It's extremely hard to believe that this person was 'fooled' in to showing up on TV with HuT. As hard as it was to read that the the moron Trent Lott showed up at cofcc for a talk and didn't understand what he was doing. Or Bob Barr.

If she didn't know wtf she was about she it not the right person. If she did she has to go as well.

I think they are getting hit so hard and frequently right now that they will stonewall.. and this will be treated as making a big deal out of some low level voluntary functionary who advises some obscure council, FOR THE PURPOSE of distracting the people from the work Obama is doing and to defeat his objectives.

They cannot DISTINGUISH a political partisan attack from a genuine fault on their part anymore.

Epaminondas said...

@RRA ..get an "IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT" bumper sticker. Your church friends and the effete Austin and A4 and A6 drivers from Marblehead will all think you had it for years.

Anonymous said...

Avenging Apostate, you asked:

"What's the point of such a pointless religion?"

Islam itself is apparently the point. Its like some dreadful riddle the human race must solve in order to evolve or otherwise advance to the next level.

On a granular level, the point is simply war, conquest, dominance, and booty or death in the striving of it.

It's a fairly good enemy actually, if one values such things.

Anonymous said...

If one values such a thing, I meant.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...


You wrote,
"For one thing, think of how controversial that would be. Plus think of how enraged Muslim leaders would be at Obama if he appointed someone from the anti Jihad movement."

Oh god no! Not enraged Muslims! We really can't have that! What was I thinking?

Say, are you wearing a bra under that burka, bitch?

Please don't be a jerk. I did not say that I agreed Obama's decision to appoint Mogahed. I was simply giving some of the reasons why Obama would not appoint someone critical of Islam. From a realist stand point, we shouldn't have expected him to appoint someone like Robert Spencer, regardless of what we would like. However, I regard Mogahed as unacceptable, and I gave no indication that I thought otherwise.

That said, its unlikely that even a highly patriotic conservative president would appoint someone critical of Islam or even part of the anti jihad movement to be his adviser of anything, at this point in time. Even someone who understood the motivations behind the action of the Jihadists, probably would not do so, unless the man in the white house was someone like Geert Wilders. But an American version of the brave and courageous Danish politician would have a hard time as president of the United States, to say the least. I say that despite the fact that I appreciate Mr Wilders bravery.

Wilders couldn't be our president, because according to the American constitution you must be a natural born citizen to hold that office. But someone like him could.
Sadly, if someone like him was our president, at this point in time, he would be condemned by people in both parties as a hate monger. He'd have trouble getting anyone in congress to go along with his agenda, and Hollywood liberals would be heading all over the world complaining how about how horrible they thought we were for electing him. He'd be being compared with Hitler even more than Bush was, receiving death threats from both Muslim Jihadists and radical leftists. People in many Western nations would complain that we elected a fascist and they're leaders would threaten to cut off all diplomatic relations with us as long as he was our president. Most likely, in the meantime Arab countries would be threatening an oil embargo against anyone who dared ally with us, and many of our would be allies would cave for purely economic reasons, if they had not already turned against us. That would not be what I would want to happen, but its what most likely would happen. I'm not saying this out of cowardice, so some crazed Jihadists don't kill me, I'm saying this because I'm being as Greg Nyquist would put it, a truculent realist.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what Wilders is doing, I would like to have someone as truthful as him as our president. But I only listed some of the problems some like him would have as our president. We could also add, how difficult it would be to get even the most moderate Muslim country to help as with anything. Under those circumstances, who our president would choose as an adviser on Muslim affairs would be the least of his problems. We could be thankful at the very least that whoever he would pick it would not be someone like Mogahed, and if there was anyone like her working for his administration he would fire her.

Don't insult me, or anyone else, because they tell you something that you don't want to hear.

Anonymous said...

another CUNT.

queen rania, CUNT 1.

mogahed, CUNT 2.