Sometimes the Smartest Men Say (or Quote) the Most Foolish Things

Re Obama's insistence that ISIS is not Islamic, Robert Fulford says something foolish and something wise.
 
The foolishness first:

Since Obama is neither a Muslim nor a scholar, that judgement is above his pay grade, as he would put it. As Bernard Lewis, a great authority on Islam, puts it: “It is surely presumptuous for those who are not Muslims to say what is orthodox and what is heretical in Islam.”

It is surely not. It is surely a matter of consulting authoritative sources and reading up on the subject, an endeavor which is no more "presumptuous" than studying orthodoxy and heresy in any other religion, or examining the belief systems of Communists and Fascists. What makes Islam so special--and so difficult to fathom--Professor Lewis? It isn't, after all, rocket science.
 
Now the wisdom:

It’s equally presumptuous for someone in Obama’s position to say what is a religion and what isn’t. If members of ISIS call themselves Muslims, they are Muslims. The U.S. President is relying on the world’s tolerance for politically correct claptrap, but this is going too far. 

It's not that the world has such a high tolerance for p.c. claptrap. It's that Obama does (because it's intrinsic to his "progressive" worldview, which has its own orthodoxies and heresies).

Update: If you really want smart, here it is--in spades:

...Despite being the greatest orator of the last thousand years, [Obama is] a complete bust at selling anything but himself, as comprehensively demonstrated in his first couple of years: see his rhetorical efforts on behalf of ObamaCare, or Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley, or Chicago's Olympics bid. When it comes to war, he suffers from an additional burden: before he can persuade anybody else, he first has to persuade himself. And he can't do it. So he gave the usual listless performance of a surly actor who resents the part he's been given. It's not just the accumulation of equivocations and qualifications - the "Islamic State" is not Islamic, our war with them is not a war, there'll be no boots on the ground except the exotic footwear of a vast unspecified coalition - but something more basic: What he mainly communicates is that he doesn't mean it. 

That's what the jihadist militias now in control of Tripoli understood about his "leading from behind". That's what Putin grasped about Obama's "red line" in Syria. And that's what any Isis member who took time out of his beheading schedule to watch the President on CNN International will have taken away from this week's speech.

Thinking Obama has even the vaguest clue about what he's doing--now, that's presumptuous (as well as idiotic).

Update: Farzana Hassan writes that a conspiracy theory making the rounds regards ISIS as an American creation, a claim that's as specious as the "ISIS isn't Islamic" trope:

...the fact is [ISIS] are using the framework of ancient Islamic beliefs. And ISIS is advancing an Islamic agenda and living an Islamic dream held by many Muslims. 

It draws on orthodox Sunni precepts about jihad, the status of women, and Islam’s apocalyptic, imperialist designs. 

I know for a fact the dream of a global caliphate is a palpable goal among many Muslims who are devoutly religious and ostensibly moderate. 

Many also believe in a jihad, at times benign and at times militant, to achieve that goal. 

This, coupled with disenchantment with Western values and political resentment towards all things “un-Islamic”, can make some Muslims impressionable and volatile. 

Such a mindset can blur the distinction between moderate and extreme Islamic brief (sic). 

When Muslims embrace conspiracy theories, they appear to deny well-established jihadi ideology aspiring to world domination, the subjugation of women, and the marginalization and even murder of non-Muslim minorities. 

These outrages have featured in Islamic history. Why are they not Islamic now?

Um, because Barack Obama (PBUH) says so?