Sunday, June 7, 2009

Obama's speech at Cairo: Addressing the muslim world

It is indeed very interesting to hear what the President of United States have to say about muslims. It is also of no doubt that Obama have successfully used the emotions of the audiences, primarily muslims by reciting few verses in Holy Quran about the common principles of humanity.

I would say, for most of the speech, I couldn't agree more of what he have stated. But on few points, I am very sceptical of what he have stated. One of them is on Iran's right to use peaceful nuclear for energy. He repeatedly say what was always said by the previous President of United States of America, that if Iran comply with the non-poliferation treaty on usage of nuclear weapons, than it is their right to do so. To this point, any President of United Stated, never recognise that Iran is exactly complying with the treaty, the IAEA have conducted investigations and the result is only that Iran have indeed followed these rules. This has never been recognised and the question that we have to offer here is, why the US never attempted to recognise this finding that ultimately prove that they are doing it according to the agreement, which will conclude that Iran is execising their rights?

Another point here is, issue of religious freedom, it is very essential to have people of different religion to respect at one another, that is important, even Islam itself promotes that. But here when Obama said, that it must be a choice of a women to wear hijab, it is just not justified. Indeed, as stated by Obama, America is good at advocating human rights, as they themselves have prosecuted those who try to prevent a muslim women who choses to wear the hajib in America. But when it comes to islam there is no pick and choose, America may say that in democracy we may never pick and choose which to follow and what not, same with Islam, when you are a muslims, a women must cover what is expected to be covered, and this is compulsory, it must be adhered, and to impose law to compel such things is to me, very justified.

The solution that Obama suggested for the issue israeli settlements in Gaza and the Palestinian people right for an establishment of a nation, that Israeli to stop more settlement, and the palestinian people ceasing their attack on israeli citizens. He stated that the road map was clear to provide an end to this problem. But the grave inconclusiveness in respect of actions here is very doubtful, Israeli, through their prime Minister responded on the cease of settlements, is negative, if this does not happen, how does the Palestinian find a reason to stop their violence?

Another point on Obama's critic over use of aggression of the Palestinian people, he said that they will never win, as the world nowadays is not forged through coercion. This is so true when, a country is a position like Iran, where they are fighting for their rights, there is no necessity for them to go to war to have their right. But what happen in Palestine, is that day by day their territory is encroach upon, their citizens are chased away from their homes by the Israeli troops, as such their crisis is an invation to a should be sovereign nation. If America were to be in the position of the Palestinian people, can they be expected to use diplomacy for protection of their own citizens. Obama stated that it is his first duty as the President of United States to protect the citizen of America, America even go to war, to Iraq, admitted by Obama as a war of choice, as in Afganistan, war of necessity to protect their citizens. Look America have gone beyond what they are justified when protecting their citizen compared to what is currently done by the Palestinians.

Despite these disagreements, I would congratulate this President, as it is not easy for him to say what he have said, as all done in capacity of the President of United States. many implications fell upon him to bear, such their interest over the favour of the Jews, the citizens views on how islam be approached, and et cetera.


  1. salam tumpang ziarah. jika ada yang berminat dengan teori konspirasi, sejarah nusantara yang hilang, sufism, kebangkitan akhir zaman..sila lah ke

    harap salam ukhwah akan bertaut demi masa depan..sekian

  2. sekian lama mendiamkan diri..harimau uitm ini kembali..chewahh wahaha

  3. It's odd how you end this article with "despite these disagreements" when actually 80% of your saying are actually for rather than against the speech. Although there are parts that are disagreeing, yet I see a some patterns of being side tracked or mislead.

    For one, the hijjab issue, to have this very secular giant country to even allowing Muslim women to practice humility in Islam is much of appraise, as compared to others who deny this right. Why you must add that such law to make wearing hijab as compulsory as an elaboration to this motion bewilders me.

    Sir, you have also mentioned that Iran is having a war? As far as I could recall, the only thing that comes close to war was the election riot. Or have I misread?

    Sir, I believe that we no longer should associate that all Jews are Israeli, all Israeli are Zionists, all Zionists are Hebrews, or any other order. This stereotyping should be wiped out and use the correct term. This is like saying all Muslims are Arabians, all Arabians are Terrorists, all Terrorrists are Arabs, or any other order. Do you see what I mean. If the people that we are warring are the Zionists, please use the right term istead of Jews or Israelis. As a responsible blogger, I beg you to be extra sensitive regarding this matter.