"Obsession" Obsession
"American voters deserve to know whether they are targets of a multi-million dollar campaign funded and directed by a foreign group seeking to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria as a way to influence the outcome of our presidential election."
Nihad Awad, Executive Director of Council on American-Islamic Relations (1),
referring to the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West"
By now you have probably received the Obsession DVD with your Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (or other newspaper). If you have not already viewed it, I suggest that you do, if only to understand the controversy over its creation and distribution.
The DVD is full of scenes of terrorism and violence, interspersed with snippets of Islamic radicals preaching hate against Israel, the United States and western civilization. Included are comments by talking heads such as Daniel Pipes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, and Nonie Darwish, whose father committed terrorist acts against Israel on behalf of Egypt nearly 50 years ago. Although the film is strident and repetitive, it effectively conveys the message that "Radical Islam" (but not all Islam) is at war with the West, and most of the terrorism we see today is due to incitement by radical Islamic clergy.
The DVD was distributed by the Clarion Fund, Suite 800, 255 W 36th Street, New York, New York. About 28 million copies have been sent out. Gregory Ross, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund,who previously raised money for Aish HaTorah (Fire of Torah), refused to identify the leaders or funding sources of the Fund. However, the address of Clarion is the same as that of Aish Hatorah International and HonestReporting, which produced Obsession. However, a spokesman for Aish HaTorah denied any connection with Clarion or the DVD.
It is fairly obvious that the Clarion Fund is a front for Aish HaTorah, a tax-exempt charity. If Aish HaTorah could be proved to have engaged in political activity, it could lose its tax-exempt status. However, the more cogent question is, " Is Obsession intended to affect voting in the November election?"
First, I would note that Obsession does not mention of American political parties or candidates, and does not suggest voting for against anyone. The dates on the film clips indicate that the film is at least two years old, and most of it substantially older. Although there are several photos of President George W Bush, there is no mention at all of Barack Obama or John McCain.
But does the message of Obsession subliminally affect the viewer? The DVD obviously engenders hostility toward the Islamic extremists, but does not that translate into a preference for a more "hardline" candidate (i.e. McCain) over one perceived to be less aggressive toward the enemies of America (i.e. Obama)?
This question could be answered definitively by setting up a number of focus groups, half of which would view Obsession before answering a political questionnaire. If the funders of the Clarion group did so, or concluded on their own that Obsession would make viewers more likely to vote Republican, then the suspicion voiced by Mr Awad in the quote above is justified.
One factor that must be considered is that Barack Obama's father was of Muslim ancestry (though the senior Obama did not practice any religion), as was his Indonesian stepfather. Raised in Indonesia for several years, Barack Obama is no doubt more knowledgeable about Islam than any other major party candidate, now or ever before. However, he accepted Christianity over twenty years ago (unfortunately, in Jeremiah Wright's church). He never changed his Arabic middle name, Hussein, which he shares with the late Sadam and the late King of Jordan. McCain, on the other hand, has no connection to Islam at all.
Unsophisticated voters may be swayed by Obsession into voting against Obama because of his very tenuous connection to the religion of his paternal grandparents or other relatives, but I suspect that most of these voters would not have voted for the Illinois senator anyways. In his campaign appearances, including the September 26 debate, Obama has taken just as hard a line against Al Qaida and the Taliban as McCain, resolving to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden even if it means violating Pakistani sovereignty. His positions on Iraq and Iran are distinctly less belligerent than McCain's, but Islamic radicalism is not really the issue in either case. (2)
I am glad that Obsession was distributed here in Wisconsin, because I want my fellow residents to be aware of the dangers of militant Islam today, especially in the Middle East. However, the latest poll does not indicate that the DVD has effectively shifted Wisconsin voters toward McCain; if the distributors expected it to have that effect, they wasted their money. In the midst of the current credit crisis, I do not believe that attitudes toward Islam will have an appreciable impact on the coming presidential election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Jewish group denies link to DVD" by Meg Laughlin, St Petersburg Times, in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 27, 2008, page 10A.
(2) Ironically, the invasion of Iraq, which Obama consistently opposed, strengthened the relative power of Iran in the Middle East, since Sadam's Iraq was a Sunni counterweight to Shiite Iran. Obama wants to negotiate with Iran over its enrichment of uranium, but McCain would not. Neither candidate advocates bombing Iran, as that would endanger US troops in Iraq and spark a painful spike in world oil prices.
Nihad Awad, Executive Director of Council on American-Islamic Relations (1),
referring to the DVD "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West"
By now you have probably received the Obsession DVD with your Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (or other newspaper). If you have not already viewed it, I suggest that you do, if only to understand the controversy over its creation and distribution.
The DVD is full of scenes of terrorism and violence, interspersed with snippets of Islamic radicals preaching hate against Israel, the United States and western civilization. Included are comments by talking heads such as Daniel Pipes, former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, and Nonie Darwish, whose father committed terrorist acts against Israel on behalf of Egypt nearly 50 years ago. Although the film is strident and repetitive, it effectively conveys the message that "Radical Islam" (but not all Islam) is at war with the West, and most of the terrorism we see today is due to incitement by radical Islamic clergy.
The DVD was distributed by the Clarion Fund, Suite 800, 255 W 36th Street, New York, New York. About 28 million copies have been sent out. Gregory Ross, a spokesman for the Clarion Fund,who previously raised money for Aish HaTorah (Fire of Torah), refused to identify the leaders or funding sources of the Fund. However, the address of Clarion is the same as that of Aish Hatorah International and HonestReporting, which produced Obsession. However, a spokesman for Aish HaTorah denied any connection with Clarion or the DVD.
It is fairly obvious that the Clarion Fund is a front for Aish HaTorah, a tax-exempt charity. If Aish HaTorah could be proved to have engaged in political activity, it could lose its tax-exempt status. However, the more cogent question is, " Is Obsession intended to affect voting in the November election?"
First, I would note that Obsession does not mention of American political parties or candidates, and does not suggest voting for against anyone. The dates on the film clips indicate that the film is at least two years old, and most of it substantially older. Although there are several photos of President George W Bush, there is no mention at all of Barack Obama or John McCain.
But does the message of Obsession subliminally affect the viewer? The DVD obviously engenders hostility toward the Islamic extremists, but does not that translate into a preference for a more "hardline" candidate (i.e. McCain) over one perceived to be less aggressive toward the enemies of America (i.e. Obama)?
This question could be answered definitively by setting up a number of focus groups, half of which would view Obsession before answering a political questionnaire. If the funders of the Clarion group did so, or concluded on their own that Obsession would make viewers more likely to vote Republican, then the suspicion voiced by Mr Awad in the quote above is justified.
One factor that must be considered is that Barack Obama's father was of Muslim ancestry (though the senior Obama did not practice any religion), as was his Indonesian stepfather. Raised in Indonesia for several years, Barack Obama is no doubt more knowledgeable about Islam than any other major party candidate, now or ever before. However, he accepted Christianity over twenty years ago (unfortunately, in Jeremiah Wright's church). He never changed his Arabic middle name, Hussein, which he shares with the late Sadam and the late King of Jordan. McCain, on the other hand, has no connection to Islam at all.
Unsophisticated voters may be swayed by Obsession into voting against Obama because of his very tenuous connection to the religion of his paternal grandparents or other relatives, but I suspect that most of these voters would not have voted for the Illinois senator anyways. In his campaign appearances, including the September 26 debate, Obama has taken just as hard a line against Al Qaida and the Taliban as McCain, resolving to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden even if it means violating Pakistani sovereignty. His positions on Iraq and Iran are distinctly less belligerent than McCain's, but Islamic radicalism is not really the issue in either case. (2)
I am glad that Obsession was distributed here in Wisconsin, because I want my fellow residents to be aware of the dangers of militant Islam today, especially in the Middle East. However, the latest poll does not indicate that the DVD has effectively shifted Wisconsin voters toward McCain; if the distributors expected it to have that effect, they wasted their money. In the midst of the current credit crisis, I do not believe that attitudes toward Islam will have an appreciable impact on the coming presidential election.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) "Jewish group denies link to DVD" by Meg Laughlin, St Petersburg Times, in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 27, 2008, page 10A.
(2) Ironically, the invasion of Iraq, which Obama consistently opposed, strengthened the relative power of Iran in the Middle East, since Sadam's Iraq was a Sunni counterweight to Shiite Iran. Obama wants to negotiate with Iran over its enrichment of uranium, but McCain would not. Neither candidate advocates bombing Iran, as that would endanger US troops in Iraq and spark a painful spike in world oil prices.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:13 AM
2 Comments:
In addition of course Obsession is not a new documentary, it is about 2 years old. In fact the local pro-Israel group Advocates for Israel of Milwaukee (AIM) showed Obsession last year to the general public in Milwaukee at Cardinal Stritch University.
However I would argue against your statement that the documentary conveys the message that "radical Islam' and not "all Islam" is at war with the West. The more correct statement is that all Muslims are not at war with the West, but all of Islam is at war with the West.
The Koran clearly supports the concept of jihad and jihad is defined by the Koran as war against the infidel and infidels are defined in the Koran as non-Muslims.
The Koran even defines the territories involved. Dar es Islam is defined in the Koran as the land governed by Sharia Law and Dar el Harb is defined as every where else and this term means "Land of War.". Therefore everywhere there is not Sharia Law is defined as the place where Muslims must wage war.
The West is the main place on earth that is devoid of Sharia Law. Therefore, by definition provided in the Koran, "all Islam" is at war against the West.
However those Muslims who do not strictly follow the dictates of the Koran, which are the great majority of Muslims, are therefore not at war with the West.
Sorry there is one technical clarification here.
Infidels are defined as apostate Muslims or polytheists, so Christians and Jews are not technically infidels they are people of the book. Mohammed gave the people of the book "protection" from the fate of infidels as long as they subjected themselves to dhimmitude.
The fate of infidels under Muslim rule was death or conversion. The people of the Book were protected from these two choices and given a third choice: dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude was defined in the Koran and Hadith as a state of perpetual humiliation. Jews and Christians had to live in continual humilation in order to be protected from the fate of infidels.
This dhimmitude required that Jews and Christians:
1. wear distinctive clothing, e.g. yellow star of David; a precurser of the Nazis.
2. could not build new or repair old synagogeus or churches
3. had to walk on the left side of Muslims and give total deference to a Muslim even children
4. could not testify in court against a Muslim, therefore of course any Muslim could do anything to a non-Muslim and not get prosecuted.
5. could not own means of transportation; e.g. horse or camel. They wanted to have a captive enslaved population for income purposes, i.e. jizya. explained below
6. had to pay heavy poll tax; i.e. jizya
7. had to build their houses lower than Muslims houses as a sign of lower status
8 had to live in religious ghettos not with Muslims, another precurser of the Christian and later Nazi practice.
9. had to give their children once per year to the Muslims to be used in the Jannisaries, eunichs, and harems, i.e. devshirme. This mostly applied to Chrstians ONLY because Jews practiced circumcision as did Muslims and this way a Christian child could always be identified thus prevent a child taken for devshirme to escape due to confusion.
The Janissaries were the court guards and they needed there to be non-Muslims because all of the first Muslim leaders were murdered by other Muslims. So this was a security measure to keep other Muslims out of the inner workings of the court and to have close access to the caliph. Again they used ONLY Christian children for this because they could not be confused with Muslim as they were not circumsized.
However, if the Jews and Christians refused to subject themselves to dhimmitude they lost their protection and became infidels. Therefore, my original statement was correct but just needed to explain how dhimmis eventually became infidels.
Post a Comment
<< Home