President Obama made an interesting statement in his Aug. 5 speech. He compared the anti-American hardliners in Iran to those members of the U.S. Congress who oppose his agreement.
Remember, he said, “In fact, it’s those [Iranian] hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘Death to America!’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus” (emphasis added).
Those who oppose the agreement have “common cause” with terrorists?
I guess Obama would feel more at home and have “common cause” with those Iranian leaders who have publicly supported his deal with Iran. It does make you wonder, though, when you look into what some of the supporters of the deal had to say, people who apparently have “common cause” with this administration.
The following are some statements by several Iranian leaders who are “supporters” of the Obama deal:
- “Saying ‘Death to America!‘ is easy. We need to express ‘Death to America!‘ with action” (“Moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, May 2013).
- “Of course, yes, death to America!” (Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, March 2015).
- “Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all” (Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, July 2015 statement made after the deal was announced).
- “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world” (“moderate” former Iranian President Rafsanjani, December 2001).
Now let me get this straight: If, as an American, you oppose the deal, you are in league with the “Iranian hardliners,” but if you support the deal, you are in agreement with those who wish to destroy America and Israel?
I thought we were looking for a means to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. Apparently, in the Obama administration, there is an entirely different meaning to Iran’s attainment of nukes. Let me reiterate: Israel is well aware of Iranian President Rafsanjani’s (and much of the Muslim world’s) view of the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East – the total annihilation of Israel vs. “damages in the Muslim world.” Death suffered by the faithful in a war with “unbelievers” is a destiny to be sought. It means eternity in paradise, so the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even millions of “shahids” would only amount to “damages in the Muslim world.” It might be well to keep in mind that the Israelis also have a position worth remembering: “Never again!”
The mistake made by Westerners, in general, and Americans in particular, is in thinking devout Muslims have the same regard for human life as do those in the Judeo-Christian West. Additionally, the concept of “negotiation” by Muslims with non-Muslims differs radically from the accepted standards held by the West.
The West, generally speaking, is not, but must be made, aware of a Muslim doctrine called taqiyya, which permits them to deceive their enemies when doing so will be advantageous to Islam‘s cause. Here are some quotes from the founder himself, the prophet Muhammad:
- (Bukhari 3,49,857) Muhammad said, “A man who brings peace to the people by making up good words or by saying nice things, though untrue, does not lie.”
- (Bukhari 4,52,267) Muhammad cried out,”Jihad is deceit.”
- (Bukhari 5,59,369) Bin Maslama volunteered to kill an enemy for Muhammad, then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.” Muhammad replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”
- (Bukhari 8,78,618) Abu Bakr, the prophet Muhammad’s closest friend and adviser and first convert to Islam, said, “If I make a pledge and later discover a more worthy pledge, then I will take the better action and make amends for my earlier promise.”
If deception of an enemy is advantageous to Islam, it is not a sin.
The reason there are translators at the United Nations is so all participants will be able to understand what is actually being said.
Could it be we need a translator of Islam in order to truly understand that they may not mean what we mean when we say what we mean?