The only explanation for Obama’s exciting ring secret is that he is a closet Muslim and feels that he can serve Islam best if he denies his being a Muslim for the purpose of a higher aspiration to serve the Muslim world from the White House, in Islamic terms the “higher jihad.” Obama has no problem whatsoever in lying for the sake of “Hope and Change” since lying about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam. Lying for the purpose of jihad (known as “taqqiya”) is not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and even serves as a reason to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have no problem in lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim masses, since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims together in harmony and friendship.

Ms. Darwish wrote that “Obama believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring about a new era of peace with Islam…” by denying and ignoring the connections between Islam and terrorism.  Hence he:

1. insists Islam itself has nothing to do with terrorism.
2. blames previous American foreign policy (and Israel), for Islamic anger.
3. narrowed down the problem of Islamism to Al Qaeda while embracing other Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate.
4. dismissed the Brotherhood’s long history of terror, which in fact gave birth to Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror groups.
5. ordered the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as “workplace violence” and not Islamic terrorism.

She explains that President Obama is torn between his Islamic sympathies and his American duties.

But as president of the United States, Obama was caught in a quagmire between protecting American lives and appearing loyal to Islam. Placing American Marines at US consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries created the possibility of a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists. That would discredit Obama’s attempt to separate Islam from terrorism. Also, if Obama confronted militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his entire claim to opening a new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart. He would then be no different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That explains why the demands for American security by U.S. ambassador Stevens went unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers in order to save American lives.

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. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards had to follow Sharia, and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather than violate Sharia themselves by killing other Muslims. Obama gambled with the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial lambs rather than violate the dictates of Sharia.

This explains a lot regarding Obama’s failure to protect our Ambassador and the Consulate in Libya.  His Islamic sympathies overrode his Presidential duties to protect American citizens serving the country overseas.  Do we want to re-elect a President who puts Islamic principles and sensibilities above the safety of American citizens?