The ‘Obama is a Muslim’ conspiracy theory is still reverberating in the Middle East


When Barack Obama stepped onto the national political stage almost a decade ago, rumors swirled that he was secretly a Muslim. These rumors have frequently been debunked — the U.S. president is a practicing Christian — but they persist nonetheless: In a poll conducted in 2014, 54 percent of Republicans were found to believe that Obama was a Muslim “deep down.”

The endurance of these conspiracy theories can probably be attributed to Obama’s position as the first African American president of the United States — his two terms as president have been wrapped up in issues of race and identity. But it’s also worth noting how these theories have mutated as they traveled abroad, adapting in unexpected ways to fit regional arguments.

One of the most persistent and widespread of these conspiracy theories gets more specific than its American variant: Obama isn’t just a Muslim, this theory goes… he’s a Shiite Muslim.


If you’re a Sunni Muslim this is bad and if you’re a Shiite this is good.

Are they basing his religion based on the religion of his father?


Shows how crazy people can get.


They persist because, as this link concludes, the “broader public puzzlement over Barack Obama’s faith — [is] a phenomenon that he helped perpetuate and, at this late date in his presidency, seems unlikely to go away.”


Yep…and now all the crazies here in the US who still believe he’s a Muslim will have more fuel to their already paranoid minds…he’ll now be a Shiite Muslim…plus the fact many of those same people still don’t believe he was born here in the US…yet the same crowd doesn’t have any problems accepting Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen even though he was born in Canada…that’s how much the level of partisan politics has degenerated to here in the US…and it applies to both Republicans and Democrats


Well, his middle name isn’t exactly Anthony or Johnathan, etc. if one gets the drift.

It’s not like he has no Muslim background. I believe his father was a Muslim.

As for declaring others being “crazies”, there is a furor over Senator Cruz for merely being born in Canada.

And respectfully, some views of the President do not reflect Christian values as far as I am concerned. Yes, we all have our own perspectives at that.


Excuse me, but when exactly has the president ever provided any clear proof that he is a “practicing Christian?” I do not believe that sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s “church” and listening to racist, virulent creeds being preached for 20 year is the equivalent of one who worships Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God who suffered and died for our sins. I have heard him far more sympathetic in speech to muslims than Christians and remember very well his “clinging to guns and religion” remark, which was not aimed at muslims but Christians.


The requirement in Article II that one be a “natural-born citizen” in order to be eligible for the presidency simply means that one be a citizen from birth, rather than subsequently becoming a citizen by later naturalization.

This was the understanding of the clause given by the very first Congress in a bill passed in 1790 and signed into law by President George Washington: “Children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”

So, by that long-standing interpretation, Sen. Cruz is clearly a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible for the presidency. Ditto McCain.

The reason that Obama apologists spent a lot of time and electrons trying to convince the American public that his digitally-manufactured birth certificate is legit is because if not (and if he was born in Kenya like his grandmother said), the law in effect at the time he was born specified that “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Since Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan national, Barack only had one U.S. citizen parent (his mother) – and she had not been residing in the U.S. for at least five years after the age of 16 when Barack was born (because she herself was only 18 at the time). That, and the fact that his parents split up when he was still a toddler, and his mother soon afterwards married another foreign national and moved with Barack to Indonesia, means that according to the law at the time, she lost her U.S. citizenship by doing so.


And what is the criteria you expect for anyone claiming to be Christain? Are certificates of initial sacraments enough, or is the only definite proof whether you judge someone to be?:shrug:


Of course there isn’t anything material to prove that one is a Christian. Many Christians can be identified by the things they say and do. I have not heard nor seen anything from the president to suggest that he is Christian (one could argue that his dredging up the crusades to disparage Christianity while steadfastly refusing to say “Islamic terrorists” in modern times is heavily suggestive of a certain point of view) though I have seen an interview with him speaking positively of muslim aspects, mentioning the koran and the “prophet.” I have never heard him say anything similar about Jesus specifically or Christianity in general.

Do you have any examples of President Obama’s external actions that even suggest he is a Christian?


Well…I’m not saying Obama’s not a Christian. He’s a wonderful man, and I like him a lot. But there are questions out there that a lot of people are asking. I’m not saying he is or isn’t. But there are questions out there.

Same with Cruz. He’s a nice guy and I like him a lot. But there are questions out there about his citizenship. I’m not saying he’s eligible or not. That’s for other people to decide. But there are questions out there about him.

Chris Christie is a wonderful man. He’s a strong leader. I like him a lot. But he is overweight. I’m not saying that’s a problem, that’s for his doctors to decide. But it does raise questions that some people may have about his health and long term health.

Carli Fiorina is a brilliant business woman. But some people think she’s not attractive. I’m not judging her on her looks, but there are people who do. I’m not saying that will have any affect on her presidency, but there are people out there who might question whether or not her attractiveness will be a disadvantage.



Fiorina is definitely more attractive than Chris Christie, or even Donald Trump for that matter.


No. Sorry I dont. First I am concerned with my family’s salvstion, and next my own. Therefore I choose to concentrate first on any logs in my own eye before fretting over a sliver in the eye of another, least I be judged.


I don’t think giving consideration to someone who aspires to lead the country is nearly the same as vetting some random joe you meet on the street.

Otherwise, why if anything from a candidate’s past ever relevant? Should we discount Hillary’s unwillingness to protect our nation secret’s because we are all sinners? Was it wrong to address Herman Cain’s accusers’ stories (even though they suddenly disappeared later in the race)? I’d say no.

Evelauating whether or not someone take’s their faith in Christ seriously is most certainly fair game when electing the leader of our country. If that is irrelevant to someone, so be it. That doesn’t mean it should not be considered for others, though.


Your definition of “brilliant business woman” and mine vary considerably.

From this link:Here are the facts: In the five years that Fiorina was at Hewlett-Packard, the company lost over half its value. It’s true that many tech companies had trouble during this period of the Internet bubble collapse, some falling in value as much as 27 percent; but HP under Fiorina fell 55 percent. During those years, stocks in companies like Apple and Dell rose. Google went public, and Facebook was launched. The S&P 500 yardstick on major U.S. firms showed only a 7 percent drop. Plenty good was happening in U.S. industry and in technology.

It was Fiorina’s failed leadership that brought her company down. After an unsuccessful attempt to catch up to IBM’s growth in IT services by buying PricewaterhouseCooper’s consulting business (PwC, ironically, ended up going to IBM instead), she abruptly abandoned the strategic goal of expanding IT services and consulting and moved into heavy metal. At a time that devices had become a low margin commodity business, Fiorina bought for $25 billion the dying Compaq computer company, which was composed of other failed businesses. Unsurprisingly, the Compaq deal never generated the profits Fiorina hoped for, and HP’s stock price fell by half. The only stock pop under Fiorina’s reign was the 7 percent jump the moment she was fired following a unanimous board vote. After the firing, HP shuttered or sold virtually all Fiorina had bought.

During the debate, Fiorina countered that she wasn’t a failure because she doubled revenues. That’s an empty measurement. What good is doubling revenue by acquiring a huge company if you’re not making any profit from it? The goals of business are to raise profits, increase employment and add value. During Fiorina’s tenure, thanks to the Compaq deal, profits fell, employees were laid off and value plummeted. Fiorina was paid over $100 million for this accomplishment.


Heck, for $100 million, I could run a major company into the ground.


The topic of discussion is the idea that President Obama is religiously a Muslim. I hardly see where mentioning that the president does not publicly profess a religious affiliation with traditional Christian beliefs as being an act of judgement. For some of us, the religious affiliation of our elected leaders is an important point in deciding for whom to vote.


I’d do it for a couple grand, as long as I don’t actually have to show up.


Marisa Mayer’s head is on the block at Yahoo. For her 3 years she will receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million.

I think people expect too much from CEOs. Fiorina and Mayer were expected to walk on water when they took over these companies. It isn’t like HP and Yahoo were in good shape when they entered the picture. Statistically, the odds were against them from the start. How many “turnaround” experts actually succeed once they enter the picture?


But it does sound, based on the politico story that Erich pasted, like she made some dunder-headed decisions while CEO that made a bad situation much worse.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit