Arguably Obama's most emphatic statement on any subject -- with perhaps the exception of the forcible redistribution of the fruit from what another man built -- is that "the US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam." Consistent with Obama having already driven a deep stake in the ground subordinating the first Amendment to Sharia, Obama asked Google to block the internet video that has proved to be incendiary to Muslims globally and has taken the producer for questioning. Further, Obama's lies (and here and here and here) and coverup concerning intel warnings of a likely attack makes Obama a less credible leader. While Islam is understood by 63% -- and growing -- of the US population to conflict with the West, Obama's complete ideological failure to assess Islam means that Obama is existentially unable to protect and defend the Constitution. Hillary's remarks – which were careful to avoid what is most relevant, the "I-word" (i.e., Islam) -- were therefore likewise feckless.
While the attack on the American embassy in Libya had nothing to do with the now viral internet video, "The Innocence of Muslims," the video certainly did fan the flames of Islamic rage and inspire subsequent attacks.
In the aftermath of the Libyan and subsequent attacks, one might say the failure of Obama and Hillary to invoke the word "Islam" implies that Obama and Hillary -- and yes the same could be said for George W. Bush -- view Muslims to be subhuman. Muslims are the only group in the world whose ideological fountainhead (i.e., Mohammad) is not allowed to be directly questioned when, following in the example of Mohammad, Muslims terrorize. Since 9/11, American foreign policy has been hear no, see no, speak no evil of Islam. Having nothing to show for trillions of dollars in the Middle East, America needs a leader who will compassionately call Muslims to the table of humanity.
Because of the clear inability of our present national leadership to defend the superiority of American ideals over Islamic ideals, I offer advice to Mitt Romney. First I recommend that Mitt demand that Google and other providers make "The Innocence of Muslims" available to those in the Middle East. Second, as noted below, Mitt should address various scenes of this movie. A discussion of this movie would clearly renounce the shrill Islamic calls for America to violate the First Amendment. Further, Mitt's explicit expression of personal disagreement with the unnecessary incendiary character of some scenes would also garner some respect from Muslims. Indeed Romney has already said, "The idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong,"
But "The Innocence of Muslims" definitely has a few scenes that are worthy of Mitt's oratory. One scene (starting at about 1:49) has a (Egyptian) Copt writing on a white board, "Man + x = [Islamic Terrorist]" and "[Islamic Terrorist] – x = Man." The answer to what x is is as self-evident as the tomfoolery in all nationally elected US politicians. None of these "leaders" have identified America's ideological enemy in the Middle East. As the Son of Hamas, Mosab Hasan Yousef, stated, Islam unskins Muslims of their humanity. But to raise this truth to the diplomatic demands of a presidential address, Mitt could recount the scene and then ask, "Why it is that the overwhelming number of terrorists on the FBI most wanted terrorist list are Muslim and many bear the name 'Mohammad'? Is this demographic a coincidence or does being a Mohammadian compel one to jihad, to assist in terror against the kufar in some way?"
Continuing, Mitt could note: Starting at 7:21, another scene involves an exchange between a Jew and Mohammad. The exchange ends with Mohammad demanding that the Jew pay an extortion. Noted in Koran 9:29, this extortion or "Jizya" tax is given for the express purpose of making unbelievers feel oppressed ["feel themselves subdued" (Yusef Ali translation) or, more completely, "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low" (Muhammad Pickthal translation)]. This Jizya tax is one of the rare violations of the golden rule that appears in any religion. Yet we find many human rights and golden rule violations in Islam. What do we make of this Islamic religious apartheid? If religious apartheid is bad, then how can Islamic religious apartheid be good?
Mitt could wax: In America we find it "to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." So I ask the Islamic world to do some soul searching. Imagine a thought experiment involving two otherwise identical belief systems. One system teaches that all mankind has the same unalienable political rights which come from God, whereas another system applies political pressure and extortion to some who do not believe that women are intellectually deficient compared to a men or that married women who are captive of war can be used by male members of the faith system as sex slaves (aka "right hand possessions" see e.g., Koran 4:3, 24). So which faith system do you think would be superior?
Admitting sins in the American culture, Mitt could patriotically say: Another scene in the "Innocence of Muslims" -- starting at 10:24 and continuing to 11:24 -- involves a women who questions "What kind of a god would sanction such human rights violations [as she noted]?" The vast majority of Muslims I know have a strong interest in ethical conduct. They can rightly point to moral problems that we have in America, problems that are particularly pronounced in places like Hollywood, San Francisco and Washington DC. Indeed in many ways Muslims can help America better embrace natural law, or as the writers of The Declaration put it, "nature and nature's God." But perhaps Americans can also help Muslims who grapple with the human rights violations sanctioned by both the Koran and Ahadith.
And here is Mitt's tough love paragraph: There are many questions that the West has for Islam: What kind of people reflexively function at such a violent level? What kind of religion allows apostates to be murdered by vigilantes with impunity? Is this sanction to murder the hallmark of a belief system that makes people better or a better hallmark of organized crime? And what about the Islam-Nazi collaboration? And why are Jews forbidden in Saudi Arabia and why have Jews left so many Islamic countries? And why do Islamic groups hate Jews more than they love their own children? Why is it so important for Muslims to concern themselves with what is none of their business?
Next follows a couple of paragraphs which urge Islamic introspection: Many Muslims know that the Western multicultural teaching -- that all religions are morally equal – is not only wrong, but stupid. But it is my prayer that Muslims will take their moral faculties to the study of Islam. As Wafa Sultan states, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant." Is Islam going to receive the respect it demands by being disrespectful of others? Does Islam market itself with the sword – with terror – or with goodness?
Muslims are my brothers and sisters in the camp of humanity. I am pro-Muslim, but I am not pro-Islam. I wish for the Middle East to be prosperous. A prosperous Middle East can benefit not only the people there, but the entire world. So we must ask ourselves, "Why are Middle Eastern countries so uninventive and why are their economies so reliant on natural resources instead of valued-added inventions? Does the disrespect for individual conscience in Islam to refuse Islamic doctrine also retard the inventiveness required for a culture of entrepreneurialism to prosper?" I ask you my brothers and sisters in humanity to ask yourselves, "Is Islam helping or hurting our standard of living and our quality of life?"
And here is where Mitt can use a political weakness, his Mormonism, as a political strength: While America is founded on the idea of rights coming from God to all mankind, America enjoys religious diversity. As a religious member of a religious minority in America, I both appreciate the tolerance shown to me and feel compelled to ask myself tough questions about my Mormon faith. I believe it is good and essential for Mormons to ask themselves the tough questions about the Mormon faith and even the tough questions about the conduct of our founding prophet, Joseph Smith. If my conscience compelled me to leave the Mormon faith, I would do so. And I oppose any and all retributions against ex-Mormons for so doing.
And here is Mitt's final paragraph: I embrace Muslims and Jews and wish to edify them both. As-Salamu Alaykum and Shalom. May God bless the Muslims, bless the Jews and bless the United States of America!
Mitt is totally correct that Obama's weak leadership is destabilizing the world. But now is the time for some real leadership from Mitt Romney. It is much more humane to defeat an enemy with diplomacy and ideology than with carnage and destruction. While Romney offered praise for Israel -- in order to distinction himself from the weak post-9/11 leadership of Bush and Obama -- Romney must address Islam truthfully and squarely. It is time for Romney to hold out a compassionate olive branch to the first victims of Islam – the Muslims.
Pieder Beeli, Ph.D. (Physics)
Dr. Beeli is a homeschooling father of five beautiful children and has contributed articles to WND and American Thinker.