President Obama has been criticized for his choice of words in labeling murderers who also happen to be Muslims (currently, ISIL).

This is a legitimate issue deserving a legitimate debate. Sadly, however, and because we are living in the fog of campaign war, the “bickering” is not creating any light to lift the fog and create a path to soberly debate what to do for our very own security.

Groups like ISIL are not an existential threat to us, President Obama asserted. He did not do that because he is clueless or weak, and certainly not because he a closet Muslim.

However, neither he nor anyone observing ISIL’s savagery and their delusional thinking that they are the tools for an apocalypse to lead the path of eternal victory should dismiss their possible potential to become an existential threat to us.

He is correct to ascertain that they cannot destroy us, let alone raise a black flag on the White House before we destroy them.

If we step back and rewind the tape a few years, we may think that we are now living the same scenario after the 9-11 horror.

President George W. Bush said, “Islam is a religion of peace” to a large community of Muslims at a mosque. Reverend Franklin Graham described Islam as a violent cult following a God that is not the God in the Bible, and asserted that the “yolk of Islam is violence.”

More recently, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the murderers of ISIL are similar to the IRA for being, basically, Christians in name only since their violence defies what Christianity is.

So, who is right and who is wrong about the religious motivation of ISIL and its ilk?

Those who claim that Islam is a violent religion and those who claim it a peaceful one are wrong, or more politely, incomplete. Islam is a religion, period.

Like any religion, Islam is internally diverse. Like any other religion, Islam evolves and changes. And like any other religion, Islam is embedded and enforced in and by cultural influence.

To consider all these facts is not necessarily politically correct, never mind the fact that the vague term “political correctness” has lost whatever meaning it was supposed to have during this presidential campaign.

But to soberly evaluate realities on the ground and strategize what to do with them and about them, also necessitate acknowledging that the verses which ISIL use to justify their savagery are Qur’anic verses. Claiming that Islamists or Islamic terrorism has absolutely nothing related to Islam does not serve Muslims as they struggle for the soul of their faith.

That does not help non-Muslims who, for whatever motive, claim that Islam has nothing violent in its teachings, thus dismissing violence-promoting verses, however minor when the totality of Islamic teachings is considered.

A most appropriate way of soberly thinking about this conundrum is to pretend that we are examining the spread of a lethal virus.

In his book “The Tipping Point,” Malcolm Gladwell, offered an excellent explanation. Gladwell’s model rests on three “factors” that are needed for that virus to spread. 1) The law of the few (just one is enough to transmit the virus) 2) The mystery of stickiness (the virus mutating into a monster and adapting to resist cures), and 3) The power of context (a conducive environment for the monster to thrive and spread).

Once again, risking boring you, I believe that we must very carefully examine the ideology of ISIL and all other similar merchants of death.

We must examine the extreme, fundamental, strident, apocalyptic school of thought of the Salafi/Wahabbi doctrine dating back to Ibn Ta’Mia. Salafi/Wahabbi teachings of Sunni Islam are the pillars, foundation and fuel for the radicalization of Muslims.

It, and its followers cherry pick the few Qur’anic verses and hadith’s by the Profit revealed for pep talks during battles for survival as they dismiss all those urging humans to be compassionate.

But, here is the rub. 1) Radical militant Islamists will continue to come and go as long as there is an ideology to plant it, feed it and water it. 2) Neither military might nor criticism by outsiders can offer any help (criticism by Ayaan Hershi Ali is offensive to most Muslims and a fuel on the fire of radical Islamism, while that of Asra Numani is received well by most Muslims). 3) We, seriously, need to be exceedingly careful not to alienate Muslims or play to the hands of the enemy.

Editor’s note: Mohey Mowafy of Marquette is a retired Northern Michigan University professor.