February 17, 2010

Our Theologian in Chief (Updated & Bumped: Hearts Flying Imams)

Robin Simcox voices something that's been bothering me for some time about those in the government who proclaim just what Islam is and isn't. In this case the post is addressed toward Obama's chief terrorism adviser John Brennan who is apparently an expert on just what jihad means and who declares that terrorists are not jihadists since jihad means inner struggle and what not.

Here's Simcox's objection:

The problem is that I have no idea why the deputy NSA feels he has to try and be a theologian, and what makes him qualified to rule on the naunces of jihad. It is not the role of government counterterrorism officials to instruct anyone what Islam – or any religion – is and what it isn’t.
Agreed.

The truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as "authentic Islam". Just as there is no such thing as "authentic Christianity" or "authentic" any non-hierarchical religion.

John Brennan is no more qualified to tell us about authentic Islam than is Osama bin Laden.

UPDATED and Bumped 2/17/11:00: It gets worse. Michelle Malkin:

During the question-and-answer session, Brennan welcomed a question from Omar Shahin. He identified himself as the head of the “North American Imams Federation.” What he didn’t mention was his role as the chief ringleader of the infamous flying imams....

In coordination with the unindicted terror co-conspirators of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Shahin and his radical delegation attempted to shake down the airline with a discrimination lawsuit and bully the citizen “John Does” who flagged the imams’ security-undermining behavior.

In defense of our Theologian in Chief, Brennan didn't appear to know who Shahin was. However, as Michelle points out, many of those "concerned Muslims" out there are activists with an agenda. In Shahin's case, his agenda is to undermine the authority of the U.S. government as he is a self-proclaimed Islamist.

But it's even worse because Brennan's answer seemed to be that we should be more concerned about backlash against Muslims then about very real terrorist attacks, such as Fort Hood.

Backlash?

There has been zero backlash against Muslims since Fort Hood. None. Zero.

As well there shouldn't be. But even if there was some "backlash" (notice the quotation marks) if you define "backlash" as people saying mean things, then how the hell can you compare people dying at Fort Hood with Muslims having their feelings hurt?

Sicks and stones will break my bones, but words? Man, words are far more dangerous!

Read the rest.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:42 AM | Comments |