Odinga, Abdi & Obama: Which Islamic MoU is real?
Raila Odinga (pictured, right, with Barack Obama in 2006) has admitted signing a Memorandum of Agreement, on August 29, 2007, with Kenya’s National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) promising to share government power in exchange for Muslim support in Kenya’s violently contested 2007 presidential elections. Odinga is a cousin of Barack Obama for whom Obama campaigned in 2006.
On February 24, 2008, I reported that the agreement Odinga signed was this one, in public circulation as early as November 9, 2007, posted on the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya’s website :
Despite NAMLEF and Odinga claims (and Snopes and Truth or Fiction silliness) to the contrary, circumstantial evidence — detailed below — still suggests this may be the agreement that Odinga signed and that a later version, published on November 27, 2007, is a fake. (Notably, Barack Obama’s own “Fact Check” website does not mention the name Odinga. I’ll let readers interpret Obama’s Odinga omission.)
On September 7, 2007, IslamKenya’s Friday Bulletin reported the signing of the MoU:
The Bulletin also reports on a 3-day forum organized by NAMLEF at which Muslim leaders were urged to “conduct civic education in their localities to educate the masses about their rights.”
Let’s see. “Educate the masses. ” Where have we heard that terminology before? Barack Obama campaigned with Raila Odinga in late 2006. Obama is a highly-adept Saul Alinsky-style agitator who did not deny ( when he had the chance on national television) that he continues to “exchange ideas” with Marxists Bernadine Dohrn, William Ayers and others. And then there’s this interesting (though as yet unconfirmed report) of Raila Odinga’s experience in East Germany:
Born to a privileged life of the Jaramogi Odinga dynasty, we learn of Raila’s upbringing and his education, including his engineering studies in East Germany, where he followed the events of the Cold War with strong sympathy for the communist cause.
On October 21, 2007, Kenyan newspaper The Nation reported:
Reports that an MoU has been signed between Mr Odinga and some Muslim figures have added to the intrigue. The response of Chief Kadhi Hammad Kassim has been that Muslims don’t vote according to MoUs but do so, like everybody else, as individuals and according to their conscience. The Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims (Supkem) has backed this position and rejected the validity of any such MoU.
It is nonetheless evident that there is a deep split in Muslim ranks. Supkem itself is divided politically. Then there is the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF), a group that seeks to rival Supkem. NAMLEF, which is chaired by Mr Abdullahi Abdi, is the group with which the ODM signed that mysterious MoU. . . (emphasis added)
Note well that on October 21, the text of the MoU, signed on August 29, had still not yet been disclosed by NAMLEF or Odinga. Why the delay? That has never been explained.
Nearly three weeks later, on November 9, 2007, Catholic Information Service for Africa reported:
CISA obtained a copy containing a raft of pledges Odinga allegedly made to Muslims on August 29. The document is signed by him and Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.
But Sheikh Abdi, who said he has seen the document, dismissed it as a forgery, adding that in this era of advanced information technology it was very easy to reproduce a person’s signature.
He told CISA that he and other Muslim leaders had worked closely with the Catholic Church and other Christians in fighting for the rights of Kenyans. He would not be party to a scheme to curtail the rights of others as claimed in the document.
What gives here? IslamKenya reports a signed agreement, on Sep 7. On Nov 9, the Sheikh is still prevaricating, implying that an agreement doesn’t even exist or that, if it does exist, it’s different from the one circulating in the press but he doesn’t produce the “real” document so as to prove that the “original” is a fake.
Finally, on November 27, 2007, after a suspiciously long gestation period, NAMLEF and Odinga reportedly published a competing version of the MoU claiming that it, not the one above, was the real deal. Kenya Today reported:
Muslims, said Sheikh Abdi [NAMLEF chair] . . . “The fear that Muslims want to introduce Sharia law and make Islam the supreme religion in the country are false and meant to generate hostility between us and our Christian and Hindu brothers. Islam does not suppress other religions,” he said.
The first clue that Sheikh Abdi might be lying about the MoU is the long delay in disclosing it’s contents. Another big clue — assuming the accuracy of the reportage — is Abdi’s assertion that “Islam does not suppress other religions.” Anyone who has read the Koran, ever thought of proselyting for Christian converts in Saudi Arabia, or watched world events since September 11, 2001 know this is a false claim. If the good Sheikh can lie about his own Koran, he can lie about anything, including this MoU.
On November 28, 2007, the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya published a statement including this language:
. . . We note that the secret MoU [supposedly published Nov 27] is being made public almost three months from the date it was signed. It has also been released only after considerable pressure from members of the public who have expressed legitimate fears that the Kenyan could be balkanized into religious blocks by politicians in search of votes in the forthcoming General Election.
We further note that when news of the MoU first broke, Hon. Raila initially confessed its existence, but later, while speaking to a Christian audience in Nakuru, denied it. Later, speaking to a Muslim audience in North Eastern Province, he accepted signing it. This was followed by the unexplained three month-silence.
In the meantime an MoU appeared in the public domain whose content has serious implications on Kenya’s unity and the peaceful coexistence of all Kenyans. Could the silence be explained by the fact that the authors of the MoU were busy considering how to engage in damage control after the MoU leaked to the public and elicited serious outrage?. . .
It appears impossible to verify — by examining digital copies of the documents alone — which of these two versions of the MOU is the real one. However, the long period of concealment suggests that the first one is the one originally signed by Odinga and NAMLEF or that the November 27 version is altered somehow from its original form. Judging from the number of signatures at the bottom, it could have taken a while to circulate a cleansed MoU.
Regardless of which of the two captures the real essence of the Odinga-NAMLEF agreement, both documents are bad news. Both feature a presidential candidate who enters into — but then initially denies — a secret agreement to share political power with a particular religion in exchange for votes. Both versions of the MOU promise “radical transformation” of the Kenyan constitution and government.
Finally, both raise questions about the judgment and sincerity of Barack Obama who, as a sitting U.S. Senator, campaigned for an obviously corrupt Raila Odinga in 2006 with whom he was on the telephone as recently as January 7, 2008, while mounting Kenyan political violence captured the world’s headlines. What they were really discussing in that phone call, we may never know. It’s fair to ask what — beyond the photo ops — Barack Obama did with Railia Odinga and company during his 2006 campaign trip to Kenya.
15 comments
Great catch! As scary as Hillary would have been I don’t think anyone but Boxer, Kennedy, and Obama (give or take a few) are scarier and that is a lot of scariness. Great catch… I hope that this will be front line news. My neighbor told me that on one news article she read (sorry no link–she did not give it to me) Obama has already agreed with US Muslims to petition 10 changes to our Consitution that would change the essence of who we are and allow Sharia to be the law of many cities. Perhaps you can verify?
At this point, I would categorize the Obama Constitution petition story as unconfirmed — and probably unconfirmable — rumor. Obama isn’t nearly as ham-handed as cousin Odinga. Even if (and it’s a whale of an if) Obama were to make such a deal, he knows there’d be hell to pay if it were ever found in writing. So if it’s out there, expect it to stay “out there” indefinitely.
Thank you, Kurt, for your cautionary words. So many people are oh so ready to jump on the latest rumor as truth.
By the way, did you hear about the mass graves of boys with broken bones at the YFZ ranch?
We’ll ignore the “mass graves”, Doran, but you may catch someone else with that.
What we cannot ignore is the baldfaced lie by the Sheikh that “Islam does not persecute other religions.” Look up “dhimmitude” on any search engine and see what it means for Jews and Christians under Muslim rule. This is standard wherever Muslims get on top. It ain’t pretty.
Yeah, but what has that to do with Obama. He asked innocently.
Or is it like Christians dealing with fundamentalist, polygamous Mormons?
Regarding the crock that Islam doesn’t persecute other religions, try this Sura on for size:
[9:29] “Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]…until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”
Read the Quran–to the end. Read the hadiths. It is not a peaceful religion.
I can’t think of one religion which deserves the label “peaceful” though Buddhism gets close. Not Christian, not Jewish, not Islam, not Baptist. Practitioners and devotees of all have in the past relied upon and to some extent continue to use threats of violence and actual violence toward non-believers, against “sinners” and “infidels”, and toward their own religious bretheren who go astray. If I am not correct in this assessment, please refresh my memory by identifying a “peaceful” religion.
‘If I am not correct in this assessment, please refresh my memory by identifying a “peaceful” religion.’
President Warren S. Jeffs could tell you. He has lived it and is living it as perfectly as mortal man can.
Or is that bordering too close on the “mass grave” subject? : )
Thank you for your open-mindedness.
If we are discussing “peaceful” religions by their primers, i. e. the New Testament and the Quran, then Christianity and Islam are not even comparable. Christ taught a gospel of turning one’s cheek. Mohammed? (The later Suras in the Quran, which are violent, are given more authority than the milder, earlier ones, in case that confuses anyone — it often does.) There is no legitimate comparison.
If you are confusing the Inquisition with what Christ taught, you’ll need a whole primer to get that straight. That did not come from his mouth, as Muslim violence does come from Mohammed’s. Christ was a man of peace; Mohammed a warrior.
Likewise with the Crusades, which (not incidentally) were launched to save Europe from the same fate that had already befallen much of the Near East and North Africa — the Muslim tide, which had largely eradicated Christianity in those former heavily Christian areas. Starting in Mohammed’s lifetime. They are still at it. Christianity, even in its perversions, is not. Read up.
Back to an earlier question you asked: what does the Muslim practice of dhimmitude have to do with Obama? Surely you jest. But… maybe not. What does this whole article have to do with Obama? And what does allegedly-Christian Obama have to do with his cousin’s attempt to impose Muslim-terrorist government on Kenya, a predominantly Christian nation? … An attempt in which hundreds of unarmed Christians died at the hands of militant Muslims, many of them burned to death in a torched church? What does Obama mean by lending that cousin his support? Does his getting into that fray, on that side, have anything to do with Obama’s Muslim roots? With Obama’s Marxist/Islamist brother Roy Obama being Odinga’s lieutenant? Your answer is probably “nothing.” But if it is “something”, we had better know what.
You may be correct about the FLDS being a peaceful religion. I also did not explicitly mention Quakers as a peaceful religion.
Now, I’m not sure that the FLDS qualifies as a religion, or if it is “only” a cult of a larger body of religious beliefs and practices which can be called a distinct religion. Same for Quakers. I’m not sure if there is a religion properly referred to as, maybe, Quakerism, or whether the Quakers are a praticularly peaceful offshot or cult of Christianity.
But I can say with some certainty that Christ was not a religion. He was a person, a teacher, a philosopher. He did not found, or start Christianity; his followers did. Christianity is the religion, and Christianity has a history of violence. I, being something of an existentialist, think it is not a meaningful distinction between Christianity and Islam that Christ’s followers may have been the source of Christian violence while Muhammed himself was the fountain head of Islamic violence. I’m sure it has meant little to the millions killed over the centuries by Christians and Muslims alike.
You have touched on most of the more notorious examples of that violence. One you did not was the Christian violence against Mormons. You mentioned the Crusades, but I think you mis-represent the reasons for the crusades.
My underlying point here is the attempt by people like you to paint Obama as somekind of Muslim sleeper. You do it by innuendo, suggestion, references to slanderous articles, and guilt by association. Just the same way people have slandered my Fellow Texans at the YFZ Ranch. When you do that, you appeal only to the choir, so to speak. You are not making your point to people who can think, because those people are not swayed by such suggestiveness. Show us some facts. I can tell you that there are a whole damn lot of yellow dog Democrats who are having second thoughts about Obama. Not because of the bs of the kind you have bought into and are peddling, but because of today’s vote of FISA, because of his liberal interventionists philosophy, because he is scrambling toward the middle. Show those people some FACTS that Obama, rather than McClain, is the Manchurian Candidate, and they will either stay home on election day or vote for Ron Paul.
I intended to point out that Christianity’s Bible includes the Old Testament. A book full of violence by God toward humanity.
Yes, the Bible does include the Old Testament, but most Christians consider Christianity begins with Christ. In any case, there is far more that is Christian in nature in the Old Testament alone than in the entire Quran.
If you believe Christ did not begin a religion–the New Testament has numerous passages that show that is exactly what He did. We don’t have to rely on later Christian history. There are at least ten such passages just in the Book of Acts alone.
To start from level ground, it seems fair to go back to original Christianity to assess what is really Christian, rather than attributing things Christ never taught but were adopted by offshoots of original Christianity hundreds of years after that time. (For a modern example, the persecution of the FLDS, which He never would have allowed or endorsed; that isn’t Christian; that behavior is a misuse of His name) You can compare what has to do directly with Christ’s life–the New Testament and many well-regarded apochrypha– versus the Quran and the hadiths. Both close in time, effectively eye-witnesses, to the two founders of those faiths. What a contrast!
Christians consider the Beatitudes to be replacements for Mosaic Law. Even the day of worship changed. The doctrine became “love your enemies,” you may recall, do good to them that despitefully use you, etc. Hardly Islamic concepts.
Cults? I am impressed that you recognize the humanity and religion of the FLDS. Their behavior is clearly more Christian than those who are persecuting them. You and I probably agree on which groups are practicing true religion in that contest.
I would say in your support of the FLDS you have been living by James’definition of true religion: — “Pure religion and undefiled before God is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction…” (James 1:27.) That comes amazingly close to describing the condition of these persecuted people in the current West Texas mess, as well as the response of those who are trying to help them.
The facts are there, volumes of them, but this is not the place to write a book or even quote one extensively.
The FLDS have at least two good tthings going for them: they aren’t stone-hearted and they know that works aren’t separated from faith(fulness), they still need to work on figuring out what is means to be neighbor, but this just means they’re sinners like the rest of us sinners, in need of God’s grace. It’s far better to pray for them to receive divine grace and talk with them about the truth (of Christianity) than it is to persecute them.
The Muslims don’t believe God can transcend nature, therefore they must impose (their idea of) his will on the rest of us. However, Christians believe God is more powerful, willing and loving enough to transcend nature - in other words the Muslims’ god isn’t the most powerful god we can conceive of. The Faith can’t be spread by force but rather it is caught by those who love. That is why making pacts to help Muslims get their own way does no good (because it just imposes their will on the rest of us without any love at all).
BTW the OT isn’t about God’s violence toward men, but rather, the unjust (and those who unfortunately live with them) getting the consequences of their actions because they live according to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law (of love).
This was a good discussion. Did you know that Barack Obama’s dad is only 12.5% Black African and the rest Arab? Barack Obama is half of that or 6.25% Black African (Negro in U.S.). That means that Barack Obama is more Arab than Black. I am the gal who lived in Kenya early 1948-late 1952 and have returned 24 times. The son of my former nursemaid is the one who gave me the memo showing friends of Senator BO giving the equivalent of $1.05 million to Raila Odinga’s campaign. Also only August 2006 was mentioned and I was there not only that time, but also August 2007 when Barack Obama was there again. If anyone wants to talk with Kuria Gitonga in Kenya, he worked for the government many years and helped with one campaign. His cell phone is 011-254-722-805546 and he would be happy to talk with anyone wanting more on the Obama-Odinga connection. Christians, please pray as never before and if you are not a Christian, accept Jesus as your personal Savior, for you’ll never be sorry.
Leave a Comment