President Obama and the Global Islam Tumult

The ninth memorial of 9/11 passed noisily. Neither the victims nor the perpetrators were central in that. It suddenly involved the ideology of the perpetrators. Many have reacted with astonishment at this tumult. Islam was up for discussion. On two radical levels, conflicting currents collided on the ruins of 9/11: the construction of a mosque in the proximity of ground zero and the announcement of a Quran burning event by a pastor.

It was apparently a mystery for many journalists. On Sept. 10, many newspapers opened with an elaborate story about a group against the construction of a mosque, which was speardheaded by Pamela Geller, a blogger from New York. She and a couple of other activists would be responsible for the tumult in America. They are anti-Islam and, worst of all, pro-Israel. Ouch.

It made me think of state newspapers in Islamic Iran. There they attempt to explain the events in the world via obscure persons and networks. The answer to the question as to why a pastor would want to burn Qurans is nested in Zionist conspiracies that have a clear connection with Israel. All roads lead to Jerusalem.

Those who know Israel a bit know that, under no circumstances, is it willing to hold a debate on Islam. They do not find a discussion on Islam very desirable. Besides, most American Jews with money stand behind the Democrats, and also behind President Obama. So, let us not attribute a role to Mrs. Geller that is much too comprehensive for her. She works in the margin and has hardly any influence. Hence, the media was a bit too occupied with conspiratorial chimeras. Why? Because they do not want to see that Obama is responsible for the tumult.

The pastor who wanted to burn Qurans responded to the Islamic intolerance towards Christians in the Middle-East. The flag burnings in the past decades in the streets of Tehran, Cairo and Beirut now bear its poisonous fruits in the Western world.

Out of convenience, it was thought in the Islamic world that the West would acquiesce to the hard and violent hate campaign against it. Because the West pretends to be civilized, Westerners will continuously place themselves above or even outside the battle arena. And now the Middle East awakens to a new reality: Western civilians can also interfere in a Middle Eastern way in the battle.

They did not understand in the Middle East that, after more than three decades of kidnappings of Westerners, flags and people burning, bomb attacks on markets and mosques, the average Western civilian became convinced that Islam really is an ocean of hate and violence. With whom lies the responsibility? With Muslims. They have to show that an Islam exists without the burning of flags, bomb attacks, kidnapping and threats.

Why does the tumult arise now? To answer this question, we have to ask ourselves another question: What has changed in the U.S. since last year? There is a new president. Also, at the time of President George W. Bush, Islam-critical intellectuals and civilians walked on America. But President Bush was able to channel that anger. One time he compared political Islam to Islamo-fascism, which in itself is not wrong, but more often he stressed Islam as a belief that has nothing to do with terror. Bush also organized an “iftar” (a supper to end fasting during Ramadan) in the White House.

But his robust position against Islamic terrorism took away any doubt. No one from the group of Islam critics wanted to cross such a president. Therefore, America was very calm. And the Muslims benefited from it as well. Holland, the country where the Islam debate began, was very noisy.

President Obama committed, following not infrequently the advice of his Muslim advisors, serious mistakes. In Cairo, he held a speech on Islam. There he claimed, based on a number of Quran verses, that Islam is a religion of peace. He even defended the wearing of the headscarf.

In Ankara he again held a speech on Islam: “I am one of you.” Why does a president of a free country have to take a decision on the question as to whether Islam is a religion of peace? The heads of states of democratic countries should place themselves as impartial and neutral toward ideological issues. They do have the task to name and oppose radical terrorist ideologies. Surely, when a president decides to proclaim Islam as a religion of peace, he invites others to claim the opposite. Then the devil is to pay. Obama himself is therefore one of the causes of the tumult.

At the time of President Bush, the FBI was not allowed to speak of the radicalization of Muslims in America. The enemy lay outside the United States. Meanwhile, I heard from FBI experts that radicalization was happening in American cities. In the past months, quite a few American Muslims have been arrested who wanted to commit attacks in the United States. An army psychiatrist of Jordanian decent murdered 13 people at a military base. So the legendary peaceful American Muslims can also convert to radical Islam. Homegrown terrorism is one of the causes of the tumult.

Holland is no longer alone in the debate over Islam. In the whole of Europe, and now in the U.S., the nature and essence of Islam is being hotly debated. How many faces does Islam really know? What happened in Holland now happens in the entire world. While we slowly start to learn how to deal with the Islam tumult, others stand at the beginning of a tumultuous era. The wise Cicero said: ut bellum sine tumultu possit, tumultus sine bello esse non possit. A war without tumult is possible, but no tumult without war.

There already was a war. The tumult now exists as well.