Obama's Abominable Obeisance: Cultural Perspectives
by Raymond
Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
April 11, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2116/obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives
Is Obama's deep bow (with slightly bent knee) to the Saudi
king as bad as it seems? The White House, apparently forgetful that we
live in the Internet age, where everything is swiftly documented and
disseminated — or else thinking it leads a blind nation — insists
the president did not bow. He supposedly always bends in half when
shaking hands with shorter people, though he certainly seemed quite erect
when saluting the British queen, who is much shorter than the Saudi
king.
Obama bowed; this much is certainly not open to debate. All
that is left now is to place his odious obeisance in context. As such,
history has much to say about the seemingly innocuous bow.
Millennia before the current war between the West and Islam
— the war Obama insists
does not exist in the first place — the ancient Greeks (forebears
of Western civilization) warred with the Persians (forebears of the
soon-to-be-nuclear Islamic theocracy, Iran).
Writing in the 5th century B.C., the Greek historian
Herodotus explained: "When the Persians meet one another in the roads, you
can see whether those who meet are of equal rank. For instead of greeting
by words, they kiss each other on the mouth; but if one of them is
inferior to the other, they kiss one another on the cheeks."
This explanation reminds one of Bush's hand-holding/kissing
sessions with the same Saudi monarch, which some insist exonerate Obama's
bow. Not so; as the Greek historian explains above, such behavior is
representative of equal rank in Eastern cultures.
As for Obama's conduct, Herodotus continues, "yet if one is
of much less noble rank than the other, he falls down before him and
worships him."
"Much less noble rank"? Could Obama, like his wife Michelle,
who only
recently became proud of America, be operating under the
conviction that being American is not all that noble?
As for "falls down before him and worships," this phrase is
a translation of the Greek word proskunesis, which means "to make
obeisance," to "worship, adore," as one would a god, or king, or god-king.
Basically, to fall on one's face in prostration to another. Connotatively,
it implies "to make like a dog" — base, servile, and submissive.
While common to the caste-like system of Persia, prostration
was something the freedom-loving Greeks scorned. Indeed, wars were waged
simply because the Greeks refused to submit — literally and figuratively —
to Persian tyranny.
According to Arrian's chronicle, at the height of Alexander
the Great's power — when his hubris against the gods and megalomania
against man were most burgeoning — he decided to implement the proskunesis
in his court, provoking controversy among the Macedonians, until one of
their numbers, Callisthenes, rebuked him by saying, "Will you actually
compel the Greeks as well, the freest of mankind, to do you obeisance?"
Another close companion to Alexander, Clitus, vexed at the former's
increasing pomposity and the lack of manly dignity at his court, told
Alexander, in the words of the historian Plutarch, that "he [Alexander]
had better live and converse with barbarians and slaves who would not
scruple to bow the knee to his Persian girdle." His words cost him his
life.
It was one decade ago, when I studied ancient history with
Victor Davis Hanson, that I last examined the proskunesis (never thinking
the day was nigh when it would have modern applicability — and thanks to a
U.S. president!). Recently corresponding with VDH about this whole sordid
affair, he confirmed that "the Macedonians seemed to really have felt
proskunesis was about the worst thing someone could do."
In light of the West's ancestors' utter contempt for
proskunesis, let us now examine Obama's prostration in context:
First, it must be affirmed that, as with ancient Greeks,
Americans find bows, prostrations, and other servile gestures distasteful.
Interestingly, the Muslim world shares this same view, particularly
so-called "radicals," who are constantly condemning "manmade" governments,
such as democracies, as systems of "human-worship" to be eschewed at all
cost. Writes Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Know that democracy, that is, 'rule of
the people,' is a new religion that deifies the masses by giving them the
right to legislate without being shackled down to any other authority"
(The
Al Qaeda Reader, p. 130).
This, by the way, is why the Saudi monarch does not tamper
with Sharia: doing so would be tantamount to self-apotheosis. Expecting
prostrations from others would be viewed little better by the theocrats
surrounding him. (Watch the video and
note that, while the king proceeded with an extended right arm, Obama
dived in with a bow, almost taking the former aback.)
In short, both Muslims and Americans (at least until very
recently for the latter) find bowing to be an odious enterprise and
therefore do not offer it to, nor expect it from, others.
Conversely, some Far Eastern cultures incorporate the bow.
Had Obama been in Japan and bowed (and received a reciprocal bow
signifying equality), his actions would have been culturally appropriate
(not to mention expected). Yet, Obama had as much reason to bow to a
Muslim as he would have to a Christian or Jew.
Yet surely he didn't bow to Abdullah due to the latter's
exalted status in the Muslim world ("Guardian of the Two Sanctities"), a
status that schoolboy Obama in Muslim Indonesia must have viewed with awe,
but rather out of politeness, because Abdullah is a king, royalty. Not so.
Were this true, upon meeting the British queen — equal "royalty" — Obama
would have stooped to her as well. (Nor can his iPod gift be considered
surrogate.)
Whatever prompted that rather instinctive bow — Obama may be
used to bending the knee to Saudi royalty, considering that Saudis
may have paid his college tuition — and regardless of antiquated
notions of "honor" and "dignity," merely diplomatically, it was a bad
move.
Not only is the Wahhabi king symbolic of the most "radical"
form of Islam — it's not for nothing that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, not
to mention bin Laden, were Saudis — but his Sharia-enforcing kingdom is
cited as one of the worst human
rights violators in the world. Bowing to this man was therefore
symbolically a bow of submission to radical Islam and all its attendant
human rights violations.
This is compounded by the fact that, immediately preceding
this ignoble bow, Obama was busy profusely apologizing to the Islamic
world, insisting that the U.S. is not at war with Islam — and "never
will be." Jihadis the world over must have been relieved to know
that not only does the leader of the most powerful Western nation have no
intention of naming them or placing them in context — so much for that
first strategy of warfare, "know your enemy" — but that nothing they do in
the future will ever cause the sleeping infidel giant's leader to arouse
it.
Similarly, Obama's obeisance should give nuke-seeking Iran
even more hope in its endeavors. After all, if the leader of the free West
so readily bends the knee to Wahhabi despotism, how long before he bows to
Iran, the true heir of proskunesis-Persia? And if he does not fully bow
willingly, that is only more incentive for Iran to hasten and acquire
nukes, so he can be made to bow unwillingly.
Finally, any would-be "moderates" or assertive governments
who may have been serious about combating radical Islam and its attendant
humanitarian abuses via Sharia have, through Obama's bow to the
personification of radical Islam, just received a clear message: aside
from occasional, perfunctory lip service, you're really on your own.
As for all those who would defend Obama's bow by saying he
was being "diplomatic," because, you know, we "need" Saudi oil, how does
that justify bowing, unprecedented from an American president, unexpected
from the Saudi king?
When Alexander the Great, drunk with hubris, took on
despotic ways, demanding that others prostrate themselves before him, the
Macedonians revolted; some were put to death. What a long way Western
civilization has come when today the leader of the free world and heir to
democratic ancient Greece, far from despotically demanding that others
offer him obeisance, voluntarily opts to prostrate himself — and in
essence, all of America — before another. And what another.
Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives/
Raymond
Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the
author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts
and propaganda.
Related Topics: Dhimmitude, US policy | 
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment