WHAT’S THE STORY? The Truth Behind Obama’s Defense of Islam

Originally posted at Clash Daily

Regardless of what Muslim adherents say, every time a terrorist beheads, shoots, or blows up civilized human beings, an unsolicited handful of world leaders feel it’s their duty to step forward to clarify that those doing the terrorizing aren’t really Muslims. That’s why someone should really find out who is convincing non-Muslim terrorists to pretend to be Muslim, because if ever there was cause for confusion, the “terrorists aren’t Muslim” issue is it.

From France’s President François Hollande to America’s very own President Barack Obama, apologists simply refuse to agree that those who openly admit dedication to the prophet Mohammed are fervent followers of the Islamic faith.

Although with great regularity Islamic extremists begin and end their bloodbaths by shouting “Allahu Akbar” and go enthusiastically to their deaths proud to be “avenging the prophet” Mohammed, for some strange reason President Obama feels it is his obligation to repudiate the testimony of martyrs.

Not only that, but a contradiction arises, because as the president has already proven with his “bitter clinger” remark, if a shooter were to shout “Praise Jesus” instead of “Allahu Akbar”, it’s highly unlikely similar PR would be offered on behalf of Christians.

Let’s face it – in the ongoing effort to place Christians in the crosshairs of progressive criticism, those on the left cannot afford to have Muslims out-evil the “right wing extremists” and Bible-thumpers. That’s why, regardless of how many body bags jihadists fill, Obama will always be at the ready to remediate the reputation of Islam in the eyes of those who see it for what it is.

So what if Muslims blow away political cartoonists for exercising the right to free expression. As evidenced by the Ferguson, Missouri street riots and the tacitly government-approved animosity directed toward police officers, here in Obama’s America, lack of tolerance exhibited by one group no longer justifies refusal to tolerate the intolerable in the other.

Yet the question here is why does Barack Obama refuse to take Muslim jihadists at their word?

Could it be because terrorism places Mohammed in a bad light, and according to a politically pragmatic president attempting to cultivate cultural and religious diversity, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam?”

Also, according to Barack Obama, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Therefore, by his insistence on portraying Islam in a light contrary to reality, what the president is actually doing is ensuring tolerance be extended to the intolerant.

As the body count continues to rise, Barack Obama continues to assert that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Huh?

Who cares if three individuals declaring vengeance for Allah wreak bloody havoc on an iconic European city? If Barack Obama decides that Islamic “rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings,” then even if what he says is contradicted by what is actually happening, one way or another his complicated rhetoric will twist the truth and blatant lies will eventually be accepted.

Let’s not forget, this is Barack Obama, the man who has redefined everything from Hope and Change to what constitutes police “acting stupidly.” Therefore, why shouldn’t he also redefine Islam, even if doing so controverts the profession of faith by those willing to be die for their beliefs?

What’s odd is that this defense of Islam is coming from a man who claims to be a Christian. Then again, it’s probably easy for Obama to disavow the claims of terrorists who call themselves Muslims because, despite admitting belief in Jesus, the president lives a life alien to the creed Christ lays out for His followers.

By his own example, Barack Obama has shed much-needed light on individuals who identify with a religious dogma and then act in a way contrary to their stated beliefs. Whether the president realizes it or not, the benchmarks he’s put forth in defense of Islam are standards that can also be applied to his own dubious relationship with God of the New Testament.

In truth, when it comes to liberal social edicts that support abortion on demand, gay marriage and free contraceptives, the president of the United States is nothing more than another radical extremist who, instead of an AK-47 or a machete, uses a phone and a pen. Moreover, everything that is “honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely” has already been dumbed down and ascribed a new meaning, so why not Islam?

Even still, notwithstanding the president’s effort to whitewash the “religion of peace,” in addition to Obama’s dogged assertion that disciples of Mohammed blowing away shoppers in a deli merely for being Jewish has nothing to do with the faith they proclaim, there may be other, more useful benefits that can result from the president reinventing reality.

Maybe what Obama is doing has little to do with Islam. The same way basic concepts of freedom and fairness have been redefined, mischaracterizing Islam may be just another example of the world’s most dedicated cultural Marxist assigning different meanings to conventional perceptions in order to skew the truth and control the opinion of the masses.

After all, the president’s socialist vision hinges on framing a make-believe world. That’s why the left’s most valuable tool is still propaganda. So, although initially the president’s “terrorists aren’t Muslim” posturing seemed confusing, on second thought it may not be confusing at all.

Barack Obama’s attempt to redefine a 1,400-year-old religion to suit his political agenda may have nothing to do with protecting Islam. Instead, shielding Muslims from condemnation may be part of an ongoing effort to remake, redefine, and impact reality so dramatically that what will finally take hold is unquestioning compliance.