Thus spoke Obama to the Muslim World: Wide-ranging reactions to Obama’s speech in Cairo

From the moment Obama ended his speech at Cairo University on June 4th, 2009, Egyptian media specialists, political commentators, and representatives of various political views and parties have been engaged in heated debates over the meaning, significance, and ramifications of Obama’s message to the Muslim World. While many see it as the hopeful new beginning that it was intended to be, others regard it merely as an attempt at wooing the Islamic world while offering very little beyond rhetoric.

Obama Uses a Different Discourse

Obama’s discourse, everyone agrees, is certainly different from that of his predecessor. It is intended to mark a new departure in American attitude towards Arabs and Muslims. It was notable that he avoided the term “terrorism” which Bush had used as frequently as he used his toothbrush. Instead, Obama opted for the use of “violent extremism”, which to all intents and purposes may carry exactly the same meaning. By refraining, however, from using the much-abused term, Obama has managed to distance himself from the policies of his predecessor and their legacy of war, fear, and mistrust.

Should Obama be Awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace?

There is no doubt that Obama has succeeded in winning the majority of the hearts and minds of Egyptians, and perhaps of the Arab and Muslim world as well. One of the commentators on the website of the Egyptian independent newspaper Almasry Alyoum saw the speech as a serious attempt at reconciliation with the Muslim world. It should entitle him, the commentator went on, to win the Nobel Prize for peace.

Moushira Khatab, Egyptian Secretary for Family and Population, in comments given to the same newspaper, expressed her admiration for Obama’s message. Of particular interest to her was his reference to Muslim women reaching the highest office of government and his emphasis on the need for education and for improving Arab and Muslim women’s representation in parliament.

Voices from the Egyptian Opposition Disapprove of Obama’s Speech

But the chorus of praise is disrupted by other dissenting voices. One commentator described Obama’s speech as nothing more than a sedative that is intended to dull the senses and perceptions of the Muslim world. His words are like butter that is bound to melt away as soon as the sun shines on it.

Hamdeen Al Sabbahi, head of the soon-to-be established Karama Party, said that “the only important aspect of the speech is its emphasis on economic cooperation and the importance of education.” His discourse, however, is no more than “the silk glove concealing an iron fist.”

Yehia Al Qazzaz, a member of the opposition Kifaya movement, also described Obama as “a noble fox” who started his speech by flattering the Islamic world through his emphasis on its rich heritage and its contribution to western civilization, before turning to more challenging and controversial political problems.

Yasin Tagel Din, Deputy Head of the Wafd Party, pointed out that the speech left him more pessimistic than he had ever been when Bush was in power. Obama, according to him, “has mixed honey with poison to make it palatable. Bush in contrast offered us the poison with the proper label on it.”

More than anything else, the absence in the speech of any reference to Gaza as well as the emphasis on the unbreakable tie connecting the US and Israel have given many Arabs and Muslims food for thought and for doubt. The speech has left them to wonder if the umbilical cord tying the super power to its illegitimate offspring will ever be severed.

Jun 11, 2009 3:14 PM

Guest :

Muslim World? As Mark Steyn has said, "Let's stop right there."

There is no Muslim World, any more than there is a Christian World, Jewish World, Buddhist World, etc. "Muslim majority countries" would be a better term. Islam divides the world into two spheres: the Muslim sphere and that of the non-Muslim. We don't need to do the same.

Bush's use of "terrorism" was appropriate, actually almost a euphemism, for by using that term instead of the more accurate, "Islamic terrorism" he downplayed the ideology which fuels most of the terrorism in the world today. Muslim majority countries should have appreciated that.

And No, Obama should not be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Time will show that he is naive and appeasement does not work. If he has truly won most of the hearts and minds of Egyptians and perhaps "the Arab and Muslim worlds" too, then that's a great achievement and what are we still worrying about? But somehow, as recent examples of Islamic terrorism show, there are many whose hearts and minds are still guided by Qur'anic principles: 142 people have been killed (and many more injured) by Islamic terrorists since Obama's speech (June 4-11 ... www.thereligionofpeace.com).

Obama should have asked for Muslims to take responsibility for the state of their countries, their negative reputation in the world, the climate of violence which permeates their societies, and the poor standard of human rights in Muslim majority countries. Instead he sought to flatter Muslims (although his speech was full of factual errors)and he used moral equivalency when comparing the rights of Muslim women with Western women (no compairson really), while blaming the West for its various supposed sins against Muslims.

Many commentators in North America and Europe feel that Obama's speech was a disaster -- but obviously for different reasons than the commentators quoted in this article.