Last week, Barack Obama, a freshman US Senator from Illinois and an African-American, decidedly took the Iowa caucues, winning by comfortable margins over his closest rival. Who would have thought that even Democrats in Iowa, an overwhelmingly white, rural, and homogeneous state would choose an African-American as their potential nominee to be President of the United States? It is truly a historic moment.

Barack’s victory is a testimony to the lengths that this country has gone since its days of slavery, where people can now come together to choose someone so different from them racially because of the merits of his message. Although the Iowa victory is a huge boost for the Obama campaign, the fight has only just begun. Winning in Iowa is no guarantee that the party will nominate him for the White House.

But this fight will bring out the anti-Muslim forces in earnest. We will once again hear the whispers that Obama is a "Muslim plant," that he "trained at a madrasa," that his first name sounds a lot like "Osama," and his middle name is the same as Saddam's. Those whispers will now become louder. If Obama continues to win, they will become shouts of alarm.

Cynics may try to "swift boat" Obama with his Muslim heritage and try to smear him with the sins of extremist Muslims. What they did with Senator John Kerry in 2004, they can do it with Obama in 2008. If they ran an overtly racist ad against Harold Ford in the 2006 Tennessee senate campaign, they can do something similar to Obama in 2008. Politics is a dirty business. If Obama continues to take state after state, the gloves will come off, and things will get ugly.

Herein lies the opportunity for Barack. If he truly wants to unite the nation, if he truly wants to be an agent of "change we can believe in," then he should stand up - when the attacks about his "Muslim ties" come - and repudiate the attacks. But he should do it in a different way than he has in the past. Imagine a response like this:

Now, recently there have been some accusations against me that I attended a "madrasa," when I was a young boy. Some have even accused me of being a "clandestine Muslim," a "Muslim plant" seeking to capture the White House. Yes, my middle name is "Hussein," and there is nothing wrong with this. Now, I have said many times that I am not a Muslim, I am a Christian, who is devout and proud of his faith.

Yet, this does not mean that there is something wrong with being a Muslim. Islam is an honorable religion, the basis of a glorious civilization that has given the world some of its greatest gifts. Muslims comprise one-fiftth of the world's population, and millions of our fellow Americans derive comfort from the Muslim faith. Indeed, there are those who claim to be Muslim who have attacked our country, who have committed inhuman acts of violence in the name of their religion.

But, these people defile the religion of Islam, and they do not represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims, across the world and here in America, who are peace-loving, law-abiding citizens who want what everyone else wants: to live in peace and security. It is high-time that we as Americans, citizens of the greatest nation on earth, to repudiate and reject the politics of division, fearmongering, and hate. We can do better as a nation, and let us start today.

A bold statement like this would be a huge step forward for interfaith relations in America. It could deal a convincing blow to the forces of hatred and fear in America. If delivered with sincerity, people across the political spectrum would be receptive.

In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama notes that “we are no longer just a Christian nation. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” But when the whispers of his Muslim heritage first surfaced, Obama remained almost completely silent, and it was truly disappointing. An opportunity to encourage fellow Americans to be more open-minded was lost. When the whispers emerge once more, Barack's opportunity should not be lost again.

Dear Hajibaba,

I was not talking about a free world under the Constitution of Bill of Rights. I was framing my comment in relation to the article. Barack Obama's alleged muslim heritage and the implication it could have on the United States if he were to confirm it and POSSIBLE desire to replace the current form of government with the Qur'an and Sharia which two leading members of CAIR desire and the Muslim American Society as well. MAS being a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. They, like Al-Qaeda have a short and longterm strategy for overthrowing the United States and replacing our system of government with the Qur'an and Sharia. I would refer you to the book "Messages to the World" The translated speeches of Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden. The Chicago Tribune did an expose on MAS.

>> POSSIBLE desire to replace the current form of government with the Qur'an and Sharia <<

Oh. Sorry. oops. You are one those loonies. Oh, yes, whatever you say. Jesus. Only in America!

Dear Hajibaba,

Loonie or not, your comment really doesn't matter.

The Chicago Tribune article is by Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Sam Roe and Laurie Cohen | Tribune staff reporters
September 19, 2004

If you read French, there is the "La conquete de L'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes. It discusses the December 1, 1982 document of the Muslim Brotherhood "Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic Policy.

Omar Ahmad of CAIR made the statement "Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

His last sentence is directly from the Qur'an.

Ibrahim Hooper, also of CAIR made the statement "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

In addition, I would suggest you get a copy of the translated speeches of bin Laden. It is called "Messages to the World" It is his translated speeches. Bin Laden is clear that he desires to cripple the West, especially the United States because the latter in particular is the obstacle to Islam taking it's rightful place in the world, domination. Al-Qaeda has a clearly marked out 20 year plan. It has already achieved a very important objective which is to get the US caught in a protracted engagement in the ME so to hurt it economically.

Finally, if you have the time, you could got back to 1997 and look through the New York Times Magazine articles to see if you can find an interview with an Afghan who was asked what was the next move for the mujahadeen. His reply was that it was Allah's will that the Soviet Union be defeated. It is Allah's will that the United States be defeated so the Islam can take it's rightful place in the world. He was Al-Qaeda.

Loonie??? Really! My evidence points to the contrary.

ND- thats something of a stretch- dont you think youre beig a wee bit overly dramatic?

"The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

now come one- from this one statement- (it seems far fethced that america was mentioned in the qur'am- no- im sure it wasnt)

you imagine an entire muslim consiracy?

what i see is an opinion from one individual-

last i checked- isnt that kind of guaranteed n the saem bil of rights you are touting?

and what bin laden has to do with the price of tea in china (or any relevance to what people in america say or believe)
isnt relevant to your point at all-

youre attmepting to create a flow form one incomparable statment to another, and then somehow imply theyre similar because youve put them in close proximity i a paragraph.

but it has to make sense also-

just putting 2 disparate statments of unequal expressions-
one, a pretty mild hope and a conjecture for a distant future
the other a strident vehemenently dominating and franky bullying exhortation

certainly i dont quote timothy mcveigh and ,even richard land in the same sentence-

a conspiracy of one is not a conspiracy

the unibomber was a conspiracy of one- but not all white college educated loners want to blow people up

>>> The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

His last sentence is directly from the Qur'an<<<

And where is this in the Qur'an???

Its stupid to say that the Prophets SAW objective was to destroy idols or hamper free religious practice. It is a simplification of the message and undermines it in a very cynical way (the same as asserting a fascist means by which Islam was spread). Our Prophet SAW spread first and foremost the belief of ONE ALLAH. For most of his prophethood, he was either suffering persecution in Makkah or defending his fledgling state in Madinah. All this while idols were being worshipped in some loose form of coercive religion.

The obvious historical FACT is that the Prophet SAW lived in Makkah while idols were in the Kaaabah. The Prophet SAW did reach terms with the pagans of Makkah that allowed for Hajj while idols were in the Kaabah. My point .. He only destroyed the idols after the peaceful conquest of Makkah. The conquest of Makkah, as it happened, was above all a recognition of his Prophethood by the Makkans and as such a recognition of his message. A recognition that was not just won through defence of the Madinian state, but through diplomacy and constant discussion with the hostile Makkan tribes as well (refer treaty of Hudaybiyah). The destruction of idols seemed to happen exclusively by people who became Muslim and denounced the false practices of their repressive society.

Sahabah themselves travelled very far to spread the message of deen. Indeed between myth and fact, it can be asserted that they are buried throughout Asia and Africa in areas where even idolatory was/is freely practiced. So it is clear that from the example of our Prophet SAW and his noble followers that the message of Islam and the presence of Imaan in people is the destruction of kufr, and not the destruction of kufr heralding the presence of Imaan. Christians prevented many people from practicing various religions and beliefs. The prior affirms freedom of conscience and the latter denies it.

Is it no wonder that the people who assert differently are among the same people who would destroy buddhist statues (asserting they are idols), while no single muslim Caliph ever saw fit to undermine the religious practice of the Buddhist monks. Its there, yet noone wants to refer to the history/sunnah, only to their utopian and fascist (and oh so fashionably western) ideals.

Yes. Very nice and eloquent speech, Ghulam. NICE. Did you think about running for President of the United States? This kind of empty fluff usually gets you elected around there to the Presidency and comes in handy for consenus building in invading Middle Eastern oil fields.

The issue here is did the Prophet eliminate a form of religion known as "idol worship"? Did he preach AGAINST Makkan Idol worshippers while he was a Makkan? Did he not remove the idols from Kabbah after taking over as conquerer of the city? Or as you are perhaps even suggesting, he took over Makkah to elimiate the idols?? Of course, because that is why the Makkans were fighting the Prophet, because he wanted to eliminate their religion.

Well how about the President of South Africa? I hear they have equally screwed up race relations down there.

Let me put it this way in defence of the Prophet (pbuh). Ghulam is not making it here.

Say there is a TRIBE out there that practices a religion called SUGAR WORSHIP. It believes that everyone should eat 3 lbs of Sugar everyday. Its good for you and per chance good for the local economy too (although that is just a co-incidence). Now some local hippie guy comes along and says EAT LESS SUGAR. Sugar is bad for you, eat less. Eat less. Eat less O people.

What does the TRIBE do? It could do nothing. Say OK, fine, this clown says Eat Less Sugar, what an idiot. People, can you believe this guy he says "eat less sugar", what a fool. End of the matter. Its a free country, say what you like.

However, after the guy starts to recruit a lot of people to his ideas, who think, "wow, we feel great, golly that sugar was really killing us inside. Whoa." And so on and so forth. At this point the TRIBE becomes violent. It starts to persecute the Sugarless Hippies.

It gets really bad over time and gets to the point that the Sugarless Hippies have to form their own rock band and than a militia also in order to ward off the violent persecution of the TRIBE.

Ultimately the Sugarless Hippie militia has to go and conquer the TRIBE because they just will not stop causing war and violence. Because, really if you think about it, the hippies really won the battle of ideas, people found their ideas to be better and kept joining them. So the TRIBE became more and more violent as it found itself under siege of its own making.

What do you do at this point if you are a hippie??? You have just disarmed the TRIBE. Should you encourage them to retain their Sugar Gouging Ideas, or should you put an end to that, because it is ultimately afterall, the main reason why so many people have died and so much violence has occurred.

The important point to remember here is that the TRIBE is the main source of violence and disharmony. The hippies are simply promoting their own ideas which they think are true. They did not ask the people to stop eating Sugar. "To you your ideas, to us ours." They did not take up arms to promote their ideas either.

I wonder someday when some hippie in America will stand-up and say, look people, lets stop exporting trillions and trillions of dollars of weapons of mass destruction across the globe, arming both friends and foes against each other. NO MORE WEAPONS BUILDING. Peace on Earth. Peace on Earth. (I am not refering to John Lennon here).

Wonder what will happen then if all the fat pig-eating Americans see the light all of a sudden and decide to join in. Will the Christian Government become just as violent and oppressive against the peace-loving hippies??

So once the so-called "Constitutional Bill-of-Rights" US Government becomes violent and oppressive in trying to maintain the status quo and its "Sugar Eating" Military-Industrial-Complex habit, the question one has to ask the ND type people is, once the hippies win the battle of ideas, will they then have to eliminate the Bill-of-Rights (like what happened to communism) as it would surely have become an obsolete idea propped up only by violence?

hajibaba-
the hippies all sold out ad became the establishment they once fought against.
theyre all having lunch with their financial advisors preparing to retire now.