The problem with that is the president has been busily murdering Muslims from drones for four years. Further, although belatedly and only after much dithering and with ridiculous rules of engagement, he committed to a surge in Afghanistan. The author fails to explain these discrepancies except to say in effect that the crypto Muslim is actually a secular fundamentalist Muslim.
One who is sometimes guided by sharia law and sometimes not. I am willing to accept that Obama has Muslim sympathies, it is even conceivable that he is a closet Muslim, however, any argument that he simply will not countenance the killing of Muslims does not wash. Therefore the author comes up with some halfway explanation:
According to Sharia, it is a capital crime for a Muslim individual or leader to shoot at fellow Muslims -- even Islamists -- for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of Sharia and an apostate. If Obama considers himself a Muslim and wears an Islamic ring, then he must have had a very hard time deciding on how to protect the consulate without killing Muslim attackers. His solution? Settling for the lesser of two evils: getting Muslims, in the form of Libyan security, to guard the property and in this way, forcing Muslims to shoot other Muslims in order to defend the consulate.
The author would have us believe that Obama is a Muslim of convenience which is I suppose possible if there is a specie which the author describes as follows:
Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview -- a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.
I suppose this means that Obama is a secular Muslim with some inclination toward sharia but with a secular worldview and an elastic Islamic conscience.
