Is Barack Hussein Obama a Muslim?
Even if he were, I don’t think it would matter. For his policies are
apparently animated by an ideology that, even though a polar opposite of
militant Islam, is little different from it in terms of objectives and
One can understand why so many people believe that Obama might be a
Muslim. After all, he himself has supplied a lot of grist to the rumor
mill. For instance, his first official phone call as U.S. President was
to Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas, signaling the new
administration’s foreign policy priorities. His first foreign trip was
to Egypt. His first major foreign policy initiative proclaimed in his
June 2009 Cairo speech was an extended hand to the Muslim world.
And how about his close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a PLO
propagandist and former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
His rhapsodic observation that the muezzin’s call to prayer is the
“prettiest” sound in creation? His beyond-ludicrous assertions that
America is one of the largest Muslim countries in the world and that
from the time of America’s founding Muslims have enriched the American
legacy? His sonorous proclamation in the Cairo speech that “Islam has
demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious
tolerance” ? His frequent, deeply reverential references to the “Holy
Koran” (has he ever referred to the Bible as “Holy?”)? His deep bow to
the Saudi King?…
Even his famous gaffe that the U.S. comprises 57 states may have been a
Freudian slip suggesting that the entity he actually had on his mind was
the Organization of the Islamic Conference that indeed has 57 member
states. Sometimes his seemingly infinite affinity for all things Muslim
goes to ridiculous lengths, as when he tasked NASA with a new mission of
outreach to the world of Islam so as to raise the Muslims’ self-esteem
by pointing out their invaluable historical contribution to aerospace
science (did he by any chance mean the magic carpet from the Arabian
Add to that Obama’s hostility to America’s allies in the Middle East,
all those “Westernizing” Mubaraks, Salehs and Kaddafis, which is
particularly striking compared to his humble, almost ingratiating,
attitude toward Islamic radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian
ayatollahs? Why did he stay studiously aloof during the mass protests in
Iran in the summer of 2009 when a mere gesture of moral support could
have put a lot of pressure on the mullahs? Aside from his overwhelming
desire for negotiations with the Teheran regime in a delusional belief
in his magical powers of persuasion, was it because the protesters
openly proclaimed their admiration for America? Under Obama, it is
dangerous to be a friend of America; it is pretty safe to be her enemy.
But is such overt and boundless Islamophilia evidence of Islamic
affiliation? Not necessarily. There is a more plausible explanation:
Barack Obama is simply a far-left radical progressive, a member in good
standing of a community whose ideology is not all that different from
the Islamist worldview, making the two movements allies, as it were.
Name just about any policy area, and everywhere the objectives of
radical progressives and militant Muslims dovetail so closely as to be
At the root of such harmony of visions lies their shared, visceral
hatred for America.
Both Islamists and far-left radicals see the U.S. as the focus of all
evil. Both believe that America must get her comeuppance. The Islamists
call the U.S. the Great Satan, which is exactly what the radicals would
call their country were they religiously inclined. But since they are
not, they call America a greedy, imperialist aggressor and vicious
oppressor, the paramount enemy of mankind. There may be some divergence
in the ultimate intentions of the two implacable enemies of America. The
radicals want to destroy America so as to rebuild her in their own
image, while the Islamists are intent on wiping her off the face of the
earth. But that’s a distinction without a difference.
How is the vehemently anti-American diatribes spouted by the Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, whose fiery sermons Barack Obama had absorbed for 20
years and whom he calls his “moral compass,” different from the
incandescent lava of hatred for all things American spewed forth by
Wahhabi preachers during Friday prayers? Is there much difference
between the Chicago pastor’s furious scream “G-d damn America” and the
frenzied Muslim rabble’s chant “Death to America”?
Both Islamists and Western leftists view the Third World people as
heroic martyrs and victims of American imperialism. Fittingly, many
Democrats believe 9/11 was an inside job. It’s not only irrational
hatred for George W. Bush that is behind this “theory,” but also
reluctance to blame the real culprits. Doing so would clash with the
progressive view that the Third World is pure as the driven snow. Thus
the left is virtually impelled to seek a way to exonerate the actual
evildoers. But somebody must be blamed for that heinous act of mass
terror. Enter George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Both Islamists and radical leftists demand a redistribution of the
world’s wealth from the industrial West to the impoverished Third World.
That underdeveloped countries dream of perpetual welfare is
understandable. Lacking education, technical and managerial skills or
work ethic, handouts from the guilt-ridden Western suckers are their
lifeline. And seeing how their benefactors cringe with embarrassment of
their riches, the Third World has come to believe that tribute is its
rightful due. Its attitude is like that of a panhandler. The more the
mark is obsessed with guilt at the sight of the beggar’s misery, the
more impudent the latter turns. Pleading gives way to demands; begging
And the progressives want nothing better than to oblige. They seek to
assuage their guilty conscience and experience a rush induced by the
feeling of their moral superiority. They wallow in guilt, a source of
acute pleasure because it allows them to separate themselves from the
benighted masses with their prejudices and bigotry, and preen as
Islamists hate Christianity, and so do radical progressives, although
the former hate a rival religion, while the latter despise religion as
such. But progressives pay proper deference to Islam, because they view
it as part of the culture of the oppressed (and also for fear of violent
retribution for which the adherents of the “religion of peace” are
justly notorious). But the upshot is the same. The progressive left
mercilessly ridicules Christianity at home, while studiously turning a
blind eye to the more vigorous forms of hatred for the Christian
infidel, the burnings and killings, rife in Muslim countries.
Another point of agreement between the far left and radical Islam is
their shared anti-Semitism and implacable hostility toward Israel. Is it
a coincidence that Obama has demanded that Israel should return to its
1967 borders, which would place her in a totally untenable position and
which is exactly what the Palestinians want? Again, there is a slight
divergence of ultimate goals between the two: the Islamists dream of
destroying the Small Satan and exterminating all Jews, while the
American radicals would be content to see Israel wiped off the map and
its inhabitants (what’s left of them anyway) merely dispersed to all
four corners of the world. But for practical purposes they are allies,
forming two prongs of a pincers squeezing Israel.
Actually, some Muslims are more ambiguous in their attitude toward the
Jewish state. For all their blood-curdling proclamations, the Arab
rulers understand full well the utility of Israel as a safety valve for
the frustration and anger of their restive populations. At heart, they
are actually not so keen on Israel’s destruction. As for the far left,
it is uncompromising in its disdain for the only democracy and America’s
sole reliable ally in the Middle East. Which foreign leader is the one
Obama hates and despises more than anybody else? Chavez? Assad?
Ahmadinejad? No, it’s Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu. Enough said.
The American left and the Middle East potentates also see eye to eye on
the issue of America’s dependence on imported oil. Obama’s staunch
refusal to develop America’s abundant energy resources and the
roadblocks he has been throwing in the path of the domestic oil industry
are in perfect harmony with the policy objectives of the oil sheiks of
Arabia, even though the two allies may be animated by different motives.
The Arabs wish to keep America hooked forever on their oil by preventing
the U.S. from developing her vast hydrocarbon resources. As for the
home-grown radicals, they seek to impose their “green” agenda on their
country however impractical it may be. Different motivations but a happy
marriage of tactics and policies, cementing America’s dependence on
Middle East oil.
Now imagine that an Islamist mole has been planted in the White House.
Would he behave any differently from Obama? Maybe he would be more
cautious for fear of being found out, but ultimately he would pursue
exactly the same kind of policies. So is Obama a Muslim? Maybe he is and
maybe he isn’t. But when all is said and done, it doesn’t make a dime’s
worth of difference.