A few days ago I heard something about a "devout" muslim being appointed to a high position in the Department of Homeland Security, so I decided to look it up. This article is what I found. What I had heard is now confirmed. Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama as assistant secretary in the Office of Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security.
Why would Obama give a "devout" muslim a high level job with significant influence over our country's safety, especially so soon after the Fort Hood Shooting? Major Hasan was a psyciatrist at Fort Hood and advocated suicide bombing during lectures. He was known to believe in a violent sect of Islam, yet he was allowed, as other majors are, to carry his own firearm. It is possible that Alikhan's situation is quite similar, and could be far more dangerous.
Also, many Americans still fear muslims in general, and, to some extent, that fear is justified (unfortunately). Putting a "devout" muslim, who, it would appear, is far more likely to be jihadist, in a position to control America's safety is more certainly not one of Obama's wisest decisions. He probably wanted to say that he has increased diversity. In that case, why not appoint a devout Christian or Jew? Obama has made a mistake and his popularity continues to fall.
You call tell what I think of Obama's decision, but what do you think? Good or bad idea? Or something in between?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know about your source, it's not reliable at all. They have entries saying some of Obama's actions are "Nazi-like" and one blog entry essentially says, "I've never called Obama a crypto-Muslim, but if he were, his actions would be the same as they are now." It also writes about how Obama is a Muslim and liberals are responsible for 9/11.
ReplyDeleteI read a Homeland Security page about him, a description of him in an interview, his school's description of him, and a description of him from an LA-based journalism blog article from 2006, and he doesn't seem at all "jihadist." A lot of sources I read about him being a supporter of terrorism pointed to an article by Right Side News for corroboration, which is a site that also had reports of Obama's Birth Certificate being fake, among other things.
I also don't see how a devout Muslim = probably similar to Hasan. Alikhan has said himself, "I think a lot of people have learned from me about being Muslim, how diverse it is, how there is no real monolithic Islam out there, how Islam clearly, clearly prohibits any type of extremism or violence and absolutely condemns that," which is totally different from something Hasan would say. He is a devout Muslim, sure, but how does that imply he's dangerous?
"Why would Obama give a "devout" muslim a high level job with significant influence over our country's safety, especially so soon after the Fort Hood Shooting"
How are Hasan and Alikhan connected-- simply the fact that they're both muslim?
Although I never agree with Obama, I think that your conclusion is incredibly weak. Just because Hasan is Muslim doesn't mean that all Muslims are bad people, and it sounds like that is what your claim is. I may dislike the religion Islam and believe that it promotes many intolerant ideals, but that doesn't mean that I have anything against non-extremist Muslims. I haven't seen any connection between Hasan and Alikhan; just because one is an extremist doesn't mean that the other one is! Understand that the term "devout" is different from "extremist." If someone is a devout Muslim, that just means that he/she is religious. You need to be really careful with your claims because many people would be offended.
ReplyDeleteHello I am Anna Sido's brother, I took AIS last year with Easton/ Christiansen. I agree with the previous comments especially on their points towards logical thinking and respectful discussion. The comment "He [Obama] probably wanted to say that he has increased diversity. In that case, why not appoint a devout Christian or Jew?" does signify a biased perspective: the statement blatantly ignores that every US president has been a "god-fearing" Christian and has demonstrated that in every campaign through focus on their church and images of them praying. It is easy to misunderstand the various facets of a major religion: for example, Christianity has a diverse population and to judge the whole based on one one member is a little ridiculous. All religions have their share of folks who believe so deeply in their cause that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of non-believers. The crusades of the middle ages, the Spanish Inquisition, and the conversion methods of Spanish conquistadors starkly illustrate that Islam is not alone in having its share of extremists. Judaism is no different. Some of the operations carried out by the Mossad against Muslims are nothing short of brutal and yet they are supported by our government. This comment is not meant as an attack or judgment, only as a warning against haste and bias.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of the former comments. I think that your claim is unjustifiable, and displays that you are, like you said, afraid of Muslims. Though I respect your views, and see where you might draw this conclusion, I think that your bias is very off base. Most importantly, I agree with Obama's idea to appoint a Muslim, especially because of the Fort Hood shooting. This seems strange, but imagine if that didn't happen. Imagine if Obama chose someone who was not as eligible as Alikhan, and was not a Muslim. The Muslim population would take offense to that, and rightly so. By electing someone who is a devout Muslim is by all means an interesting choice, but also one that shows that Obama does not believe in the "Part of the Whole," a specific type of false logic. William and I took a philosophy and logic course at Northwestern (CTD) and learned that one type of fallacy is "Part of the Whole"-- incorrectly believing that everyone in a group is exactly like each other. An example would be someone saying everyone at Harvard is absolutely, without a doubt brilliant, and the smartest students in America can be found there. Obama is doing the direct opposite of this: by electing a "devout" Muslim, as you had the habit of putting " marks around "devout," he is proving that he does not judge people by their associations with religion, or the dozen or so other things commonly found in an anti-discrimination statement (sexual orientation, race, gender, etc.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, why did you put the word devout in quotations? Seems strange
Fantastic and respectful dialogue -- everyone -- including the elder Sido: welcome, brother!
ReplyDeleteShirley, thanks for being so honest in expressing your opinion. I would very much love to hear your thoughts on a related post I recently wrote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe posts above me have made good points, so I'm just going to keep this one pretty short. Whatever people believe, whether they are afraid of Muslims or not is their own business, but I believe they cannot take a whole group of people and call them dangerous.
ReplyDeleteLike with the Japanese Interment camps, not all Japanese were/are dangerous or needed to be separated. During World War II the Japanese population (including Japanese Americans) got a bad rep, all of them. Even though not all of them were bad. I believe that although some Muslims have done dangerous acts we cannot deem all Muslims dangerous. They deserve a chance just like everyone else.
I see that my inability to clarify my own point the first time around has once again resulted in me putting my foot in my mouth. I had intended my primary focus to be on questioning Obama's decision in light of the Fort Hood Shootings, which I believed would increase many American citizens' arguments against that appointment of another "devout muslim.
ReplyDeleteMy reason for saying "devout" rather than devout, Anna, is to emphasis the fact that, while religious muslims in political positions are often called devout, I have rarely heard of a Christian, Jew, Buddist, etc, in a political post being called devout.
Has there ever been a Buddhist, devout or no, in a federally appointed position?
ReplyDelete--William and Anna
To my knowledge, no, there has not been a Buddist in a federally appointed position. I apologize, I under estimated the time I had to respond to your comment and typed those last few lines in a rush.
ReplyDelete