Suppose you believe, as Barack Obama evidently does, that Islam is a religion of peace. You endorse the universal affirmative ("A") proposition that all Muslims are peaceable. One day, a Muslim commits mass murder. There are two things you might do to preserve consistency in your beliefs.
- You might cease believing, and saying, that all Muslims are peaceable, which might in turn cause you to abandon the idea that Islam is a religion of peace. This is the respectable approach.
- You might deny that the mass murderer is a Muslim. You might say, for instance, that "no true Muslim would commit mass murder." This preserves consistency in your beliefs, but at what cost? You have arbitrarily excluded someone from the class of Muslims, on the ground that he or she doesn't satisfy your idea of what a Muslim is (or should be).
This fallacy was originally known as the "No-True-Scotsman Fallacy." I hereby propose that we rename it, for it is committed routinely by Barack Obama and his minions, who seem hell-bent on preserving their (patently false) belief that Islam is a religion of peace. See here. Only someone in the grip of Islamophilia could believe such a thing.
Addendum: Islamophilia is a far greater threat to this nation than Islamophobia, and unfortunately our government is suffused with Islamophiles. Women, blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, and disabled people had better wise up fast, for their identities have taken a back seat to Muslim identity. To be Muslim today is to be protected, immunized, enabled, and promoted—at the expense of everyone else. Gays and lesbians now know (after the mass murder in Orlando) that when their interests conflict with those of Muslims, they lose.
