A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. Here's the
dilemma as I see it: Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 2, 8:14*am, wrote:
Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. *He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. *Here's the
dilemma as I see it: *Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). *And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. *The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). *But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R

A similar (not identical, only similar) thing happened with Madeleine
Albright. She has Jewish ancestry, but denies any connection with the
Jewish faith; many in Israel were very unsure of how to respond to
that. AFAIK, no one in the Arab world cared at all, although they
certainly could have.

Likewise, the fringe of the muslim world has a lot to say about women
being in positions of authority...I don't see them having any problem
with meeting with Hilary, Madeleine or Condi.

Without knowing MUCH more about Islam, and you can read that to mean
BEING Muslimm or at least being an expert on the ins and outs of
Islam, I don't think any hypotheticals you or I came up with about how
the Arab world would treat Obama have enough basis is reality to be
worth worrying about. This whole Apostate thing has become such a
political football that I'm surprised that you are posting it here as
if it was someting that just dawned on you.

For one (of many) counterpoints, read:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...f 900bedd1fc6


--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:14*am, wrote:
Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. *He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. *Here's the
dilemma as I see it: *Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). *And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. *The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). *But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R

A similar (not identical, only similar) thing happened with Madeleine
Albright. She has Jewish ancestry, but denies any connection with the
Jewish faith; many in Israel were very unsure of how to respond to
that. AFAIK, no one in the Arab world cared at all, although they
certainly could have.

Likewise, the fringe of the muslim world has a lot to say about women
being in positions of authority...I don't see them having any problem
with meeting with Hilary, Madeleine or Condi.

Non sequitur. What "Arabs" might think of those who "deny any
connection with the Jewish faith" or women in positions of authority is
unrelated to what Islamic law and the Quran state about apostates. Obama
was born a Muslim and he actively and knowingly rejected Islam as an
adult - the debate over what Islamic law says about apostates is viable;
to debate his apostasy is pointless.

Without knowing MUCH more about Islam, and you can read that to mean
BEING Muslimm or at least being an expert on the ins and outs of
Islam, I don't think any hypotheticals you or I came up with about how
the Arab world would treat Obama have enough basis is reality to be
worth worrying about. This whole Apostate thing has become such a
political football that I'm surprised that you are posting it here as
if it was someting that just dawned on you.

His apostasy didn't "just dawn on me," but his recent leaving of his
church put another spin on it. To me, this could be (and should be)
trouble for him - why is he leaving it now? Oh, I know it's supposedly
all final-strawish because some guilty white liberal Catholic priest
went off the my brotha deep end, but his narrow wanna-be-black ass was
right there warming the oak through the same kind of schtick when it
made him look good locally.

For one (of many) counterpoints, read:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...f 900bedd1fc6

Not much of a counterpoint. They are absolutely correct about a few
Islamic scholars stating that it is their interpretation that apostasy
is a crime, but it is to be punished in the afterlife, by God, etc. So
what? There are US scholars who would state that it is their thinking
that many US drug laws are wrong, un-Constitutional, etc. Attempts at
using such with a court to get a possession with intent rap tossed ain't
gonna build a legal career.

IAC, I had not seen, read, or even heard of the referenced NYT piece
until I read your cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...12luttwak.html

but it seems more accurate than the one you cited. Further, what the
"Arab media" might or might not say about Obama is not conclusive, or
even material as to his apostasy, and citing that they haven't made an
issue of his apostasy has no bearing on the fact that under much of
Islamic law and for most "authorized interpreters," he is an apostate.
The "Arab media" doesn't make that call, clerics interpreting the Quran
do. And note the quote from your story,

"The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar...Tantantawi sic said, 'A Muslim who
renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone _as long as
he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam._'" Emp. add. (and BTW, it's
Tantawi).

I'll not attempt to define what "pose a threat" or "belittle" might mean
to whom, but I will say that the threshold for doing so doesn't seem to
be particularly high for some. And the rest of his position is "If
Muslims are forced to take action against the apostate, it should not be
because he or she had given up the faith but because he or she had
turned out to be an enemy or a threat to Islam." And for the record,
Tantawi does seem to tolerance and peaceful co-existence, with the
serious caveat that threats to Islam shall not be tolerated.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

FWIW, it appears he supports death for Rushdie as an apostate blasphemer
and enemy of Islam. But since he is a single scholar in Egypt, I'm not
sure what he has to do with Iran, Iraq, Syria, a Palestinian state, etc.

TC,
R
--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

riverman wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:14 am, wrote:

Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. Here's the
dilemma as I see it: Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R


A similar (not identical, only similar) thing happened with Madeleine
Albright. She has Jewish ancestry, but denies any connection with the
Jewish faith; many in Israel were very unsure of how to respond to
that. AFAIK, no one in the Arab world cared at all, although they
certainly could have.

Likewise, the fringe of the muslim world has a lot to say about women
being in positions of authority...I don't see them having any problem
with meeting with Hilary, Madeleine or Condi.

Without knowing MUCH more about Islam, and you can read that to mean
BEING Muslimm or at least being an expert on the ins and outs of
Islam, I don't think any hypotheticals you or I came up with about how
the Arab world would treat Obama have enough basis is reality to be
worth worrying about. This whole Apostate thing has become such a
political football that I'm surprised that you are posting it here as
if it was someting that just dawned on you.

For one (of many) counterpoints, read:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...f 900bedd1fc6


--riverman

the fundamental (i.e., rabid) religious sects there and here are
problematical in political conduct, though i think such matters are
generally most focused within each country's own borders (real or
imagined). i seriously doubt apostasy will be a diplomatic issue worthy
of concern given the purported announced and perceived agendas and
politics of the various leaders, candidates, and countries. i'm much
more worried about mccain's ability to do anything meaningful or
responsible in quelling the real world problems we have created and
perpetuated in that area of the planet. his election will be perceived
as more of the same by the muslim world. military-enforced and militant
solutions will never work on any permanent basis, nor will hawkish
chest-thumping, imo.

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:50:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:14*am, wrote:
Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. *He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. *Here's the
dilemma as I see it: *Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). *And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. *The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). *But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R

A similar (not identical, only similar) thing happened with Madeleine
Albright. She has Jewish ancestry, but denies any connection with the
Jewish faith; many in Israel were very unsure of how to respond to
that. AFAIK, no one in the Arab world cared at all, although they
certainly could have.

Likewise, the fringe of the muslim world has a lot to say about women
being in positions of authority...I don't see them having any problem
with meeting with Hilary, Madeleine or Condi.

Non sequitur. What "Arabs" might think of those who "deny any
connection with the Jewish faith" or women in positions of authority is
unrelated to what Islamic law and the Quran state about apostates. Obama
was born a Muslim and he actively and knowingly rejected Islam as an
adult - the debate over what Islamic law says about apostates is viable;
to debate his apostasy is pointless.

Without knowing MUCH more about Islam, and you can read that to mean
BEING Muslimm or at least being an expert on the ins and outs of
Islam, I don't think any hypotheticals you or I came up with about how
the Arab world would treat Obama have enough basis is reality to be
worth worrying about. This whole Apostate thing has become such a
political football that I'm surprised that you are posting it here as
if it was someting that just dawned on you.

His apostasy didn't "just dawn on me," but his recent leaving of his
church put another spin on it. To me, this could be (and should be)
trouble for him - why is he leaving it now? Oh, I know it's supposedly
all final-strawish because some guilty white liberal Catholic priest
went off the my brotha deep end, but his narrow wanna-be-black ass was
right there warming the oak through the same kind of schtick when it
made him look good locally.

For one (of many) counterpoints, read:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...f 900bedd1fc6

Not much of a counterpoint. They are absolutely correct about a few
Islamic scholars stating that it is their interpretation that apostasy
is a crime, but it is to be punished in the afterlife, by God, etc. So
what? There are US scholars who would state that it is their thinking
that many US drug laws are wrong, un-Constitutional, etc. Attempts at
using such with a court to get a possession with intent rap tossed ain't
gonna build a legal career.

IAC, I had not seen, read, or even heard of the referenced NYT piece
until I read your cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...12luttwak.html

but it seems more accurate than the one you cited. Further, what the
"Arab media" might or might not say about Obama is not conclusive, or
even material as to his apostasy, and citing that they haven't made an
issue of his apostasy has no bearing on the fact that under much of
Islamic law and for most "authorized interpreters," he is an apostate.
The "Arab media" doesn't make that call, clerics interpreting the Quran
do. And note the quote from your story,

"The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar...Tantantawi sic said, 'A Muslim who
renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone _as long as
he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam._'" Emp. add. (and BTW, it's
Tantawi).

I'll not attempt to define what "pose a threat" or "belittle" might mean
to whom, but I will say that the threshold for doing so doesn't seem to
be particularly high for some. And the rest of his position is "If
Muslims are forced to take action against the apostate, it should not be
because he or she had given up the faith but because he or she had
turned out to be an enemy or a threat to Islam." And for the record,
Tantawi does seem to tolerance and peaceful co-existence, with the
serious caveat that threats to Islam shall not be tolerated.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

FWIW, it appears he supports death for Rushdie as an apostate blasphemer
and enemy of Islam. But since he is a single scholar in Egypt, I'm not
sure what he has to do with Iran, Iraq, Syria, a Palestinian state, etc.

TC,
R
--riverman

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:



Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 2, 9:19*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. *Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. *I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. *OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

Not a right-wing conspiracy, but certainly typical religio-centric
paranoia.

Wikipedia (religious textual icon that it is) pretty strongly implies
that you have to be post-puberty and renounce Islam to be considered
an Apostate. AFAIK, Obama left the muslim faith about the time that
most of us were about the age that we thought Easter was about
chocolate. I think that among the vast vast majority of muslim states,
modern diplomacy will supplant any religious dictates (such as it has
with meeting with unveiled women in authority, etc). Among the Islam
lunatic fringe, they don't need any reason to attempt something
extreme, and we have entire secret organizations whose sole purpose is
to prevent such events.

I don't think the US voters should let our elections be affected by
some fear that our President might be a Target. If we do, then we lose
control of our own elections, and they win. There are always similar
irrational concerns about candidates: people who did not know
Catholicism feared that JFK would be more allegiant to the Pope than
the Constitution, and I remember Yankees fearing that Jimmy Carter
would be more allegiant to the Stars and Bars than the Union.

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:22:51 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R


the fundamental (i.e., rabid) religious sects there and here are
problematical in political conduct, though i think such matters are
generally most focused within each country's own borders (real or
imagined). i seriously doubt apostasy will be a diplomatic issue worthy
of concern given the purported announced and perceived agendas and
politics of the various leaders, candidates, and countries. i'm much
more worried about mccain's ability to do anything meaningful or
responsible in quelling the real world problems we have created and
perpetuated in that area of the planet. his election will be perceived
as more of the same by the muslim world. military-enforced and militant
solutions will never work on any permanent basis, nor will hawkish
chest-thumping, imo.

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control, what do you think he would do and what do
you think would happen to him? And do you think that those labeled
"radical" or worse by the west (the followers of OBL and the like) would
say about his or anyone else's apostasy?

While I more-or-less agree that attempts to persuade Ahmedinejad,
Khamenei, etc. to personally injure or kill a US Presidential candidate,
much less the POTUS, is not probably going to be seriously considered by
the attempted persuadee, OTOH, I can see the Iranian leadership being
put into a position of not being able to talk, negotiate, etc. with an
apostate (or using it as an internal excuse for whatever they wish). For
many Muslims, there is no room for "political realism" when it comes to
Islamic law, and breaking it under such circumstances is itself a
serious violation.

But surprisingly to me, you seem to be doing what many other are doing -
imposing a secular, Western-centric, law-view on this. This has nothing
to do with it being, particularly, Obama or who Obama is, or whether he
might be a better or worse POTUS than whoever, it has to do with
absolute law as many Muslims see it. For many Muslims, they can "deal"
with a person who may be "hawkish" but never Muslim, and thereby not
apostate, as a "ruler" of a non-Islamic state, but they cannot come into
contact with an apostate as the "ruler" of a non-Islamic state without
having a absolute sacred duty to treat that apostate accordingly, based
on the apostate's actions. IOW, while they might not feel a duty to
seek out apostates in non-Islamic states, they might well see their duty
differently if that apostate is before them, especially if that apostate
is acting in a way that they see as that of an "enemy of Islam."

Heck, flying a jumbo jet full of people into an office tower full of
people, blowing up train stations, nightclubs, and buses, even for
religious reasons, is pretty much a legal no-no in most of the western
world, but the local legal prohibitions didn't seem to matter to those
involved. I'd offer that if someone is not only willing to die, but
intent upon doing so to accomplish their goal, secular laws and/or
possible criminal penalties aren't exactly a shield from them or a sword
against them.

TC,
R

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 2, 9:19*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. *Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. *I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. *OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

Not a right-wing conspiracy, but certainly typical religio-centric
paranoia.

I'm sure what you mean to say, but if you think the issue of apostasy in
Islam is some new Obama-inspired thing, you're the one being, er,
"-centric."

Wikipedia (religious textual icon that it is) pretty strongly implies
that you have to be post-puberty and renounce Islam to be considered
an Apostate. AFAIK, Obama left the muslim faith about the time that
most of us were about the age that we thought Easter was about
chocolate.

Er, no, and no. Under the majority of Islamic scholars' interpretation,
he is an apostate - he was born Muslim. The only thing minority allows,
generally, is that he is not subject to punishment for an apostasy until
majority - there is no minority period of "free apostasies" prior to
majority. IAC, Obama apostatized as an adult, so whatever he may have
done as "a child" is no longer the controlling factor. And as to
beliefs about Easter (perhaps a Freudian choice, certainly an ironic
one...), given some of his supposed self-stated beliefs and ideas, he
obviously still believes in fairy tales...

I think that among the vast vast majority of muslim states,
modern diplomacy will supplant any religious dictates (such as it has
with meeting with unveiled women in authority, etc).

Why do you think that?

Among the Islam lunatic fringe,

Um, do you consider the vast majority of Muslims the "Islam lunatic
fringe?"

they don't need any reason to attempt something
extreme, and we have entire secret organizations whose sole purpose is
to prevent such events.

I don't think the US voters should let our elections be affected by
some fear that our President might be a Target. If we do, then we lose
control of our own elections, and they win. There are always similar
irrational concerns about candidates:

Like John McCain's age...? Seriously, I agree with the above,
generally. I don't suggest that anyone in the US should consider his
apostasy in voting (but I don't suggest that they don't, either), but I
find it another of life's little ironies, given the aforementioned
positions on other nations and US involvement...much like the whole
delegates-vs-"popular vote" mess Hillary finds herself in, with none
other than Terry McAuliffe as her head poot boy...

people who did not know Catholicism feared that JFK would be more
allegiant to the Pope than the Constitution,

Well, sure - anyone who had any insight into the Kennedys knew he'd
ignore 'em if possible and **** 'em both over if not for family and
"friends"...

and I remember Yankees
fearing that Jimmy Carter would be more allegiant to the Stars and Bars
than the Union.

Uh...

IAC, a whole lot of Yankees aren't all that bright, anyway...

TC,
R

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 3, 5:22*am, wrote:

IAC, a whole lot of Yankees aren't all that bright, anyway...



No argument from me on that one. And it extends both south and west.
And to the right and left.

But as far as the apostate thing; it seems to have a high degree of
swiftboating in it. And as for the rest of Islam, there is already a
precedent with a supposedly apostate leader (who even denounced Islam
after he was an adult), and there were no problems with his
denoucement of Islam.

From http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286

"But would Muslims seeing Obama as a murtadd significantly affect an
Obama presidency? The only precedent to judge by is that of Carlos
Saúl Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999. The son of
two Muslim Syrian immigrants and husband of another Syrian-Argentine,
Zulema Fátima Yoma, Menem converted to Roman Catholicism. His wife
said publicly that Menem left Islam for political reasons—because
Argentinean law until 1994 required the president of the country to be
a member of the Church. From a Muslim point of view, Menem's
conversion is worse than Obama's, having been done as an adult.
Nonetheless, Menem was not threatened or otherwise made to pay a price
for his change of religion, even during his trips to majority-Muslim
countries, Syria in particular."


Again, I'm not stating uncategorically that whether or not Obama is an
apostate, or whether or not that will be something to address is a non-
issue, but I'm quite comfortable that it IS a non-issue. And until I
hear even the slightest breath about it from the mouth of an actual
Muslim leader, I'm going to assume its just hypothetical mutterings
from a segment of American society with a ulterior motives.

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmmm. How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. Cheering. Happy at our losses. They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us. Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

OTT, fishing is very good. Took several big brookies this a.m. on the
dreaded Green Rock Worm, several "lesser" ones, and four very nice
(18+ inch) landlocks on the same fly.

The water is warming up but there are no hatches. I am beginning to
fear that the &%$@(@ power company may have scoured the river with
high flows in late winter/early spring, sending all the bugs into the
woods where they died.

Joanne and Jenny are in camp. Spent the night around the fire
listening to Bebel Gilberto and her mom and dad, Astrid and Joao.

Dave

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 3, 9:29*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller

wrote:
i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmmm. *How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? *News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. *Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. *Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. *Cheering. *Happy at our losses. *They don't like us,
Jeff. *It fact, they hate us. *Get used to it. *It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. *Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.


I don't remember that. I remember one picture of a bunch of kids in
Palestine, but that was rather spurious and easily written off the
adrenaline of youth being exposed to global affairs way beyond their
understanding. I would not be surprised if there were pictures from
other places, but I never saw "news footage from every muslim country
celebrarting our losses". And I give those pictures exactly as much
credibility for being representative of any 'national perspective' as
I do all the 'Kill them all, let God sort them out" hype that
Americans are famous for. With a bunch of minor exceptions, I don't
think all Americans hate muslims any more than I think all muslims
hate Americans. But there are certainly a lot of droolers on both
sides.

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

- JR

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 3, 9:51*am, JR wrote:
jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....
as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

- JR

LOL. I can see the cabinet now.....

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:51:03 -0400, JR wrote:

jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I think he just didn't want to have to de-ice the Volvo windshields any
more...

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

And again, I don't think Obama is in any unusual physical danger over
this, but I can see how it can become a major issue _outside the US_.
Moreover, to label the issue as something new because of Obama, some GOP
tactic, "swiftboating," or anything like that is really off-base and
arguably, anti-Islamic. Apostasy has been an issue for Muslims and
Islam for centuries, up to and including today. And it's hypocritical
for westerners to dismiss it off-handedly as "extremist" -
western/secular governments have severe penalties, including death, for
(secular) treason and eastern, non-Islamic states impose the death
penalty for a variety of reasons that many in the US and the west don't
find "extreme" - i.e., they don't take particular exception as to the
state's ruling as to the severity of the crime even if they don't
support capital punishment for that crime. Therefore, if one recognizes
that people are free to choose to live in a state governed internally by
their choice of laws, be it secular, Islamic, or other religious law,
one looks pretty silly to then say that the state in question cannot
impose, in the context instant, Islamic law.

TC,
R

- JR

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:22:51 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


This is, IMO, no reflection on Obama as it would seem none of it - or at
least being an apostate - involves a choice he made or had any influence
upon (IOW, he could hardly pick his father). But it is, again IMO, an
interesting, weird dilemma for him as well the non-Islamic world - if he
were elected Prez, AFAIK, he would be the first apostate leader of major
government.

And here's what could be the real "**** hits the fan" thing: what
happens when some radical pushes the issue with Khamenei, etc....

R


the fundamental (i.e., rabid) religious sects there and here are
problematical in political conduct, though i think such matters are
generally most focused within each country's own borders (real or
imagined). i seriously doubt apostasy will be a diplomatic issue worthy
of concern given the purported announced and perceived agendas and
politics of the various leaders, candidates, and countries. i'm much
more worried about mccain's ability to do anything meaningful or
responsible in quelling the real world problems we have created and
perpetuated in that area of the planet. his election will be perceived
as more of the same by the muslim world. military-enforced and militant
solutions will never work on any permanent basis, nor will hawkish
chest-thumping, imo.


OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control, what do you think he would do and what do
you think would happen to him? And do you think that those labeled
"radical" or worse by the west (the followers of OBL and the like) would
say about his or anyone else's apostasy?

While I more-or-less agree that attempts to persuade Ahmedinejad,
Khamenei, etc. to personally injure or kill a US Presidential candidate,
much less the POTUS, is not probably going to be seriously considered by
the attempted persuadee, OTOH, I can see the Iranian leadership being
put into a position of not being able to talk, negotiate, etc. with an
apostate (or using it as an internal excuse for whatever they wish). For
many Muslims, there is no room for "political realism" when it comes to
Islamic law, and breaking it under such circumstances is itself a
serious violation.

But surprisingly to me, you seem to be doing what many other are doing -
imposing a secular, Western-centric, law-view on this. This has nothing
to do with it being, particularly, Obama or who Obama is, or whether he
might be a better or worse POTUS than whoever, it has to do with
absolute law as many Muslims see it. For many Muslims, they can "deal"
with a person who may be "hawkish" but never Muslim, and thereby not
apostate, as a "ruler" of a non-Islamic state, but they cannot come into
contact with an apostate as the "ruler" of a non-Islamic state without
having a absolute sacred duty to treat that apostate accordingly, based
on the apostate's actions. IOW, while they might not feel a duty to
seek out apostates in non-Islamic states, they might well see their duty
differently if that apostate is before them, especially if that apostate
is acting in a way that they see as that of an "enemy of Islam."

Heck, flying a jumbo jet full of people into an office tower full of
people, blowing up train stations, nightclubs, and buses, even for
religious reasons, is pretty much a legal no-no in most of the western
world, but the local legal prohibitions didn't seem to matter to those
involved. I'd offer that if someone is not only willing to die, but
intent upon doing so to accomplish their goal, secular laws and/or
possible criminal penalties aren't exactly a shield from them or a sword
against them.

TC,
R

jeff


as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics with regard
to this apostate stuff and the so-called "islamic law".

Not really. It seems clear that all would consider him an apostate, but
a small majority hold the view that any punishment for apostating alone
should come in the afterlife. The majority seems to hold the view that
apostation is a serious crime. Further, it seems that even those
scholars who opine that apostation alone is one thing, most seem to
agree with the majority that apostation combined with anything
proactively insulting to Islam or combined with being "an enemy of
Islam" is unquestionably a "capital crime" so to speak.

i think you have
chosen a narrow and radical view of islamic law to support your
argument. what are you claiming the muslim "sacred duty" mandates in
diplomatic negotiations between an american politician like obama - who
you consider an apostate - and a muslim leader like ahmedinejad,
khamenei, al-sadr, etc. ?

That is precisely my point - Islamic law ain't exactly a "living,
breathing, ever-changing" thing, and so, the "duty" of a Muslim
confronting an apostate is subject to the "leader" the Muslim in
question chooses to follow. Scarily, it seems that darned few Islamic
scholars in the Middle East (at a minimum) would consider killing an
apostate a crime, even if they feel that apostasy is a death-penalty
offense.

i'm not "imposing" any particular view. i acknowledge my limits as a
western world non-muslim with little experience or education regarding
the muslim world. i do recognize how some use their own notions of
religious mandates to justify, criticize, and avoid - but that isn't
limited to islam...nor does it seem to propel or control current
international diplomacy. still, i don't think my opinion is a stretch
(that your obama-the-apostate issue won't impact relations between our
country and a muslim country as much as a hawkish, non-muslim, mccain
presidency), while your position demands a radical islam rule akin to
the taliban. i don't think iran or egypt or iraq will be radicalized by
apostasy views in the conduct of their diplomatic and international
relations. while i have no doubt there could be resort to any bizarre
interpretation that advances an agenda (viz. the whole "torture" issue
in this country), i doubt the interpretations of apostasy will serve to
affect obama's effectiveness in his diplomatic efforts in dealing with
the muslim world.

...and, to answer your question directly, i think the taliban would have
killed him, and would have killed you, me, my wife, and billy graham.

Well, I can't and won't speak for you, your wife, or Billy, but I have
not apostated Islam (and would not do so) and I can think of nothing
I've done to warrant a death sentence under Islamic law as it is
generally interpreted by the majority of Islamic scholars, including
those in the Taliban. I mean, I wouldn't imagine being a favored member
of the populace or anything, but OTOH, I wouldn't imagine a great deal
of individually-focused trouble, either.
i
also don't think that lends support to your claim. if we have to deal
with taliban as the governing authority in any country, there won't be
effective diplomatic negotiations for innumerable reasons - apostasy the
least of them, imo. you may call that a secular, western-centric,
law-view ... i think it's a view shared by many muslims. lunatics can't
be reasoned with...we have experience with our own as well. i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmm...I have not and do not suggest that those who see apostation of
Islam is a severe crime are lunatics or zealots. You're a legal scholar
- read some of the controlling language in the Quran from a couple of
translations and see what your objective interpretation might be. But I
think you may be underestimating and/or misunderstanding exactly how
serious, rigid, and controlling Islamic laws are to Muslims (not all, of
course, but the majority). Islam ain't Joel Osteen's
Roll-Yer-Own-Feelgood-Religion, with a little "Shout to the Lord"
playing in the background...say what you will, the large percentage of
Muslims take their religion, um, religiously...

TC,
R

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 3, 11:48*am, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:51:03 -0400, JR wrote:
jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I think he just didn't want to have to de-ice the Volvo windshields any
more...

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

And again, I don't think Obama is in any unusual physical danger over
this, but I can see how it can become a major issue _outside the US_.
Moreover, to label the issue as something new because of Obama, some GOP
tactic, "swiftboating," or anything like that is really off-base and
arguably, anti-Islamic. *Apostasy has been an issue for Muslims and
Islam for centuries, up to and including today. *And it's hypocritical
for westerners to dismiss it off-handedly as "extremist" -
western/secular governments have severe penalties, including death, for
(secular) treason and eastern, non-Islamic states impose the death
penalty for a variety of reasons that many in the US and the west don't
find "extreme" - i.e., they don't take particular exception as to the
state's ruling as to the severity of the crime even if they don't
support capital punishment for that crime. *Therefore, if one recognizes
that people are free to choose to live in a state governed internally by
their choice of laws, be it secular, Islamic, or other religious law,
one looks pretty silly to then say that the state in question cannot
impose, in the context instant, Islamic law.

TC,
R



I hear you, but the entire point of your post above relies on the
premise that this Apostacy threat to Obama is legit, which I am not
prepared to do, in the absence of ANY evidence from ANY head of a
Muslim state.

I think there is a tremendous amount of Xenophobia in America right
now, especially towards Muslims, and much of what is being bantered
about about Obama as an apostate is based on partial knowledge, at
best, of Islam.

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.


Hmmmm. How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. Cheering. Happy at our losses. They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us. Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

OTT, fishing is very good. Took several big brookies this a.m. on the
dreaded Green Rock Worm, several "lesser" ones, and four very nice
(18+ inch) landlocks on the same fly.

The water is warming up but there are no hatches. I am beginning to
fear that the &%$@(@ power company may have scoured the river with
high flows in late winter/early spring, sending all the bugs into the
woods where they died.

Joanne and Jenny are in camp. Spent the night around the fire
listening to Bebel Gilberto and her mom and dad, Astrid and Joao.

Dave



forgotten a lot, but not that... or similar images of radical conduct at
a high school in little rock, arkansas... not sure it's pertinent to
the point though. why do you think they hate us dave?

good to hear tales of the rapid and your times there. do you go down to
the place where the old dam building was removed? i have a special
memory of a large brook trout i caught on a streamer just below the dam
and in view of that old house perched up on the bluff. the streamer
looked like part of the fender from a buick, created and loaned to me by
our canadian friend peter. he also showed me how to fish streamers in
that current. i miss those pleasant times at that place. but...i've
been fishing for puppy drum and enjoying a renewed experience with the
sal****er scene. haven't seen any reports of your friend ken's redfish
adventure in louisiana, but you should give that kind of fishing a go.
if you think a big brookie or salmon in the river currents can pull,
wait until you get one of those swimming anvils on your line.

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:13:30 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 3, 11:48*am, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:51:03 -0400, JR wrote:
jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I think he just didn't want to have to de-ice the Volvo windshields any
more...

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

And again, I don't think Obama is in any unusual physical danger over
this, but I can see how it can become a major issue _outside the US_.
Moreover, to label the issue as something new because of Obama, some GOP
tactic, "swiftboating," or anything like that is really off-base and
arguably, anti-Islamic. *Apostasy has been an issue for Muslims and
Islam for centuries, up to and including today. *And it's hypocritical
for westerners to dismiss it off-handedly as "extremist" -
western/secular governments have severe penalties, including death, for
(secular) treason and eastern, non-Islamic states impose the death
penalty for a variety of reasons that many in the US and the west don't
find "extreme" - i.e., they don't take particular exception as to the
state's ruling as to the severity of the crime even if they don't
support capital punishment for that crime. *Therefore, if one recognizes
that people are free to choose to live in a state governed internally by
their choice of laws, be it secular, Islamic, or other religious law,
one looks pretty silly to then say that the state in question cannot
impose, in the context instant, Islamic law.

TC,
R



I hear you, but the entire point of your post above relies on the
premise that this Apostacy threat to Obama is legit, which I am not
prepared to do, in the absence of ANY evidence from ANY head of a
Muslim state.

Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic." One need look no further than the situations of human
rights issues involved in US/Chinese relations, with regard to Tibet and
otherwise, N. Korean/US relations, etc. for examples of how the populace
of these countries might wish their leaders to act. As an example,
let's imagine that Obama is President and an American citizen, say a
teacher, is found to be equating Mohammed to a teddy bear in an Islamic
country. The US then issues a formal protest. To some, this could be
see as an apostate "insulting Islam" by demanding that an Islamic
country and people are not entitled to follow Islamic law as the protest
would naturally be that the law/ruling is "wrong." Granted, it might be
superficially all diplo-bureaucratic-speak, but the gist would be that
the law in question was "wrong." Clinton, McCain or Joe "the
Episcopalian" Doe doing so would be one thing, but an apostate doing it
an entirely different matter. Again, I'm not suggesting that the above
would (or should) put Obama in personal danger, but I would offer that
it could readily lead to, um, diplomatic situations.

And no, I don't think US voters should make this issue the key factor or
even a major factor, but I do think those that consider it in the scheme
of things are reasonable in doing so. Just as I'd say it was fair to
consider McCain's age and temperament in the scheme of things. Just as
I'd say it would be fair to consider that Hillary Clinton is lying,
amoral, unethical schemer in, um, the scheme of things...

I think there is a tremendous amount of Xenophobia in America right
now, especially towards Muslims,

Assuming you mean the US, I'd agree that there is a degree of
anti-Muslim feeling in "America." But I'd offer that there is as much
or more genuine fear (as well as justified objective concern) of Islamic
"radicalism" in much of the west - look to situations in France,
Denmark, etc. And this brings up a point - many of those who decry Bush
allege that his actions with regard to "world opinion" are extremely
important - that he personally has caused "world opinion" of the US to
be diminished. If that's fair game, why is unfair to consider the
possibility that Obama's apostation could be a grave and serious offense
to something like 20% of the world's population, and that those people
are specifically those with whom most of the serious issues are? And
further, that even allowing that his apostation isn't itself all that
serious, combined with a perceived insult to Islam, it becomes a grave
irreparable issue?

and much of what is being bantered
about about Obama as an apostate is based on partial knowledge, at
best, of Islam.

Heck, I'd offer that much of what is being "bantered about" about Obama
is pure political gamesmanship as well as downright nonsense. Same is
true of Clinton, McCain, etc. But I'd also offer that there is no
question that calling Obama an apostate is objectively defensible via
the direct rulings of the majority of Islamic scholars (for example, I'd
offer that even scholars like Tantawi would hold that Obama an apostate
while also holding that his apostation alone is not grounds for "earthly
consequences"). It is only the possible consequences that are open to
debate, even among Islamic scholars, rulers, clerics, and perhaps most
importantly, ordinary "lay" Muslims.

TC,
R

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmmm. How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. Cheering. Happy at our losses.

Huh? While I'd agree that there were scenes of relatively small crowds
"cheering," I'd offer that the vast majority of Muslims were shocked and
horrified at the loss of life. I'd further offer that many Muslims feel
that such broad action is an insult to Islam. IAC, 9/11 had absolutely
nothing to do with Obama and/or his apostation, and I think suggesting
that a repeat is likely based solely upon it is W-A-A-A-A-Y out there.
No, further than that. Nope, further still...

They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us.

"They?" OK, name "them." And which "us" are you talking about? Name
them, too, please. While I'd agree that some Muslims do "hate" certain
other groups that may include you, me, jeff, etc., I'd suggest that
Muslims "hating" "Americans" isn't the real issue behind 9/11 and
similar attacks worldwide. The real issue isn't a single issue at all,
it's a whole situation. And no, it isn't Bush's fault, Bill Clinton's
fault, or any other single person or country's fault. And no, McCain,
Obama, and Clinton, together or individually, aren't gonna "fix" it. Get
used to THAT.

Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so.

Unless you have a crystal ball, I'd offer that something that has been
going on for over two thousand years isn't likely to be solved - really
- in the next hundred...at least not in a fashion many are going to like
or approve of...

Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

Or nobody wins...and most everybody loses...martyrs and those who
actually get a passel of virgins, excepted, perhaps...

OTT, fishing is very good. Took several big brookies this a.m. on the
dreaded Green Rock Worm, several "lesser" ones, and four very nice
(18+ inch) landlocks on the same fly.

The water is warming up

Leaky waders, huh...?

but there are no hatches. I am beginning to
fear that the &%$@(@ power company may have scoured the river with
high flows in late winter/early spring, sending all the bugs into the
woods where they died.

Joanne and Jenny are in camp. Spent the night around the fire
listening to Bebel Gilberto and her mom and dad, Astrid and Joao.

There's a special running around on one of the "educational" channels -
Frank, Joao, and Ella - I only saw part and didn't see Astrid, but what
I saw, I liked - check your local listings, as "they" say...

TC,
R

Dave

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:45:37 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:



as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics with regard
to this apostate stuff and the so-called "islamic law".


Not really. It seems clear that all would consider him an apostate, but
a small majority hold the view that any punishment for apostating alone
should come in the afterlife. The majority seems to hold the view that
apostation is a serious crime. Further, it seems that even those
scholars who opine that apostation alone is one thing, most seem to
agree with the majority that apostation combined with anything
proactively insulting to Islam or combined with being "an enemy of
Islam" is unquestionably a "capital crime" so to speak.

the age of and reasons for the renunciation seem to be considered, and,
if being an apostate is not to have any temporal punishment or
consequence, then it seems a meaningless issue in the context of
diplomatic relations...no?

No. Age is a consideration in the application of "earthly" punishment
(obviously, for that minority who interpret that there should be no
earthly punishment, age isn't a consideration in a non-existent earthly
punishment). A minor who apostates is held until majority and then
punished as an adult - similar to various jurisdictions that incarcerate
as a minor and transfer to "adult" prison for the remander of the
sentence. But he didn't apostate (only) as a minor, so age is no longer
material.

i suppose you can construct a socratic
example that will require admissions from your audience, and if you
simply want a possibility acknowledged...no problem. but, in reality, i
still think it highly improbable that "obama the apostate" will deter a
more normal diplomacy with muslim governments, including our so-called
enemies.

Now this is a different matter - "highly improbable" isn't "impossible"
and it certainly doesn't speak to potential. I readily acknowledge that
I don't, right here, right now, with current information, see it as some
inevitable major aspect of a potential Obama Presidency. But it would
appear that I think it has "more legs" than you do, but any potential
for it becoming an issue is based on what a President Obama might or
does do with regard to Islamic governments, what governments either
become Islamic or secular, and what ordinary Muslims do or are inspired
to do by their various leaders. Potential and probability are not
inextricably linked nor is one calculable from the value of the other.
IOW, if you throw a lit match into a bucket of gasoline, the probability
is low that it'll explode, but the energy potential of the gasoline is
still pretty high.



i think you have
chosen a narrow and radical view of islamic law to support your
argument. what are you claiming the muslim "sacred duty" mandates in
diplomatic negotiations between an american politician like obama - who
you consider an apostate - and a muslim leader like ahmedinejad,
khamenei, al-sadr, etc. ?


That is precisely my point - Islamic law ain't exactly a "living,
breathing, ever-changing" thing, and so, the "duty" of a Muslim
confronting an apostate is subject to the "leader" the Muslim in
question chooses to follow. Scarily, it seems that darned few Islamic
scholars in the Middle East (at a minimum) would consider killing an
apostate a crime, even if they feel that apostasy is a death-penalty
offense.

my limited experience with and understanding of religious texts of all
kinds...bible, torah, quran/koran, etc. ... suggests an incredible
looseness of language that meaning and interpretations of meaning are
often very "flexible". i think you...from whatever perspective...have
selected a narrow, radical view to suggest and support a possible
problem. by and large, religious doctrine is some fukked up stuff if
intended to be interpreted as rules of law. what about the whole rabid
"infidel" thing?

What about it? My suggestion would be to do a brief scan of what a
Google search pulls up with regard to apostates prior to, say, 2005 to
avoid any possible, er, "Obamatization" from any front (but look into
the Afghan thing with the guy who had to be declared incompetent to
avoid execution - I don't recall the exact date, but it has been
recently). Again, this issue isn't something that just popped up
because of Obama.

i'm not "imposing" any particular view. i acknowledge my limits as a
western world non-muslim with little experience or education regarding
the muslim world. i do recognize how some use their own notions of
religious mandates to justify, criticize, and avoid - but that isn't
limited to islam...nor does it seem to propel or control current
international diplomacy. still, i don't think my opinion is a stretch
(that your obama-the-apostate issue won't impact relations between our
country and a muslim country as much as a hawkish, non-muslim, mccain
presidency), while your position demands a radical islam rule akin to
the taliban. i don't think iran or egypt or iraq will be radicalized by
apostasy views in the conduct of their diplomatic and international
relations. while i have no doubt there could be resort to any bizarre
interpretation that advances an agenda (viz. the whole "torture" issue
in this country), i doubt the interpretations of apostasy will serve to
affect obama's effectiveness in his diplomatic efforts in dealing with
the muslim world.

...and, to answer your question directly, i think the taliban would have
killed him, and would have killed you, me, my wife, and billy graham.


Well, I can't and won't speak for you, your wife, or Billy, but I have
not apostated Islam (and would not do so) and I can think of nothing
I've done to warrant a death sentence under Islamic law as it is
generally interpreted by the majority of Islamic scholars, including
those in the Taliban. I mean, I wouldn't imagine being a favored member
of the populace or anything, but OTOH, I wouldn't imagine a great deal
of individually-focused trouble, either.


oh c'mon richard ... of the outspoken infidels named above, you'd be the
first killed. g the point is...taliban ain't healthy for any
loud-mouthed or principled non-muslim living under taliban domination.
of course, it doesn't appear american is healthy for muslims living
under american domination either.

Principled and loud-mouthed is one thing, apostation and/or insulting
Islam is another. I have no reason to insult Islam because I respect
the right of Muslims to their faith. I feel they are absolutely correct
in their beliefs insofar as for themselves, but I also feel that Jews,
Catholics, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, etc. are, too. I don't have
the slightest desire to control or denigrate the faith of other people
regardless of my feelings about those people controlling their actions
toward still other people. IAC, while Islamic law and the Taliban are
related, a government based upon a general term of "Islamic law" is not
automatically the Taliban, radical, or otherwise negative in any
objective sense I can see. There are plenty of people who can choose
and have chosen to live under such a government and are not, even in a
"western-centric"/common law/secular/whatever sense, "radicals."

i
also don't think that lends support to your claim. if we have to deal
with taliban as the governing authority in any country, there won't be
effective diplomatic negotiations for innumerable reasons - apostasy the
least of them, imo. you may call that a secular, western-centric,
law-view ... i think it's a view shared by many muslims. lunatics can't
be reasoned with...we have experience with our own as well. i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.


Hmmm...I have not and do not suggest that those who see apostation of
Islam is a severe crime are lunatics or zealots. You're a legal scholar
- read some of the controlling language in the Quran from a couple of
translations and see what your objective interpretation might be. But I
think you may be underestimating and/or misunderstanding exactly how
serious, rigid, and controlling Islamic laws are to Muslims (not all, of
course, but the majority). Islam ain't Joel Osteen's
Roll-Yer-Own-Feelgood-Religion, with a little "Shout to the Lord"
playing in the background...say what you will, the large percentage of
Muslims take their religion, um, religiously...

i'm not a scholar of any kind. in fact, i think i'm quite dim on this
and many other subjects. however,i think i understand the concept of
merging religious didactics with government, and the concept of an
islamic state, i.e., the problem with separation of powers, rule of law,
and governing principles. however, the reality of international
relations and pressures seem to munge the "religiously religious" with
what's practical and necessary.

Um, what does the source of the law have to do with one being faithful
to it? Heck, one doesn't need to compare Islamic law to whatever
secular law to understand that those who believe in a particular system
take it to heart - for example, how strongly do you feel about the US
and NC Constitutions? How'd you feel about some Islamic cleric being
allowed to interpret things under them as he felt they ought to be? Too
radical a thought? You want an Irish solicitor telling NC lawyers about
how libel laws ought to be? Still too far, pardon the pun, abroad? How
about Louisiana notaries public doing civil law work in NC? The
principle of law and the source thereof aren't the same thing. Another
example - Erie with regard to state law in federal court.

hell richard, i've been in the realm of pentecostal snake-handlers and
southern baptists most of my life. g

And yet, you think highly improbable that religion might enter into
things...?!?!

jeff (whose spouse just revealed she dreamed last night that she was a
stick of butter...)

Um, you didn't pretend you were Marlon Brando, did you...? HEY! WAIT!
I got it - butter is oily, cars can be "sticks" and need oil, and
gasoline is made from oil...QUICK! Check the gas gauge and the oil
level!

TC,
R

TC,
R

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Jun 3, 11:49*am, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:45:37 -0400, jeff miller





wrote:
wrote:

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics with regard
to this apostate stuff and the so-called "islamic law".

Not really. *It seems clear that all would consider him an apostate, but
a small majority hold the view that any punishment for apostating alone
should come in the afterlife. *The majority seems to hold the view that
apostation is a serious crime. *Further, it seems that even those
scholars who opine that apostation alone is one thing, most seem to
agree with the majority that apostation combined with anything
proactively insulting to Islam or combined with being "an enemy of
Islam" is unquestionably a "capital crime" so to speak.

the age of and reasons for the renunciation seem to be considered, and,
if being an apostate is not to have any temporal punishment or
consequence, then it seems a meaningless issue in the context of
diplomatic relations...no? *

No. *Age is a consideration in the application of "earthly" punishment
(obviously, for that minority who interpret that there should be no
earthly punishment, age isn't a consideration in a non-existent earthly
punishment). *A minor who apostates is held until majority and then
punished as an adult - similar to various jurisdictions that incarcerate
as a minor and transfer to "adult" prison for the remander of the
sentence. *But he didn't apostate (only) as a minor, so age is no longer
material.

i suppose you can construct a socratic
example that will require admissions from your audience, and if you
simply want a possibility acknowledged...no problem. *but, in reality, i
still think it highly improbable that "obama the apostate" will deter a
more normal diplomacy with muslim governments, including our so-called
enemies.

Now this is a different matter - "highly improbable" isn't "impossible"
and it certainly doesn't speak to potential. *I readily acknowledge that
I don't, right here, right now, with current information, see it as some
inevitable major aspect of a potential Obama Presidency. *But it would
appear that I think it has "more legs" than you do, but any potential
for it becoming an issue is based on what a President Obama might or
does do with regard to Islamic governments, what governments either
become Islamic or secular, and what ordinary Muslims do or are inspired
to do by their various leaders. *Potential and probability are not
inextricably linked nor is one calculable from the value of the other.
IOW, if you throw a lit match into a bucket of gasoline, the probability
is low that it'll explode, but the energy potential of the gasoline is
still pretty high.







i think you have
chosen a narrow and radical view of islamic law to support your
argument. what are you claiming the muslim "sacred duty" mandates in
diplomatic negotiations between an american politician like obama - who
you consider an apostate - and a muslim leader like ahmedinejad,
khamenei, al-sadr, etc. ?

That is precisely my point - Islamic law ain't exactly a "living,
breathing, ever-changing" thing, and so, the "duty" of a Muslim
confronting an apostate is subject to the "leader" the Muslim in
question chooses to follow. *Scarily, it seems that darned few Islamic
scholars in the Middle East (at a minimum) would consider killing an
apostate a crime, even if they feel that apostasy is a death-penalty
offense.

my limited experience with and understanding of religious texts of all
kinds...bible, torah, quran/koran, etc. ... suggests an incredible
looseness of language that meaning and interpretations of meaning are
often very "flexible". *i think you...from whatever perspective...have
selected a narrow, radical view to suggest and support a possible
problem. by and large, religious doctrine is some fukked up stuff if
intended to be interpreted as rules of law. *what about the whole rabid
"infidel" thing?

What about it? *My suggestion would be to do a brief scan of what a
Google search pulls up with regard to apostates prior to, say, 2005 to
avoid any possible, er, "Obamatization" from any front (but look into
the Afghan thing with the guy who had to be declared incompetent to
avoid execution - I don't recall the exact date, but it has been
recently). *Again, this issue isn't something that just popped up
because of Obama.







i'm not "imposing" any particular view. i acknowledge my limits as a
western world non-muslim with little experience or education regarding
the muslim world. i do recognize how some use their own notions of
religious mandates to justify, criticize, and avoid - but that isn't
limited to islam...nor does it seem to propel or control current
international diplomacy. still, i don't think my opinion is a stretch
(that your obama-the-apostate issue won't impact relations between our
country and a muslim country as much as a hawkish, non-muslim, mccain
presidency), while your position demands a radical islam rule akin to
the taliban. i don't think iran or egypt or iraq will be radicalized by
apostasy views in the conduct of their diplomatic and international
relations. *while i have no doubt there could be resort to any bizarre
interpretation that advances an agenda (viz. the whole "torture" issue
in this country), i doubt the interpretations of apostasy will serve to
affect obama's effectiveness in his diplomatic efforts in dealing with
the muslim world.

...and, to answer your question directly, i think the taliban would have
killed him, and would have killed you, me, my wife, and billy graham.

Well, I can't and won't speak for you, your wife, or Billy, but I have
not apostated Islam (and would not do so) and I can think of nothing
I've done to warrant a death sentence under Islamic law as it is
generally interpreted by the majority of Islamic scholars, including
those in the Taliban. *I mean, I wouldn't imagine being a favored member
of the populace or anything, but OTOH, I wouldn't imagine a great deal
of individually-focused trouble, either.

oh c'mon richard ... of the outspoken infidels named above, you'd be the
first killed. g *the point is...taliban ain't healthy for any
loud-mouthed or principled non-muslim living under taliban domination.
of course, it doesn't appear american is healthy for muslims living
under american domination either.

Principled and loud-mouthed is one thing, apostation and/or insulting
Islam is another. *I have no reason to insult Islam because I respect
the right of Muslims to their faith. *I feel they are absolutely correct
in their beliefs insofar as for themselves, but I also feel that Jews,
Catholics, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, etc. are, too. *I don't have
the slightest desire to control or denigrate the faith of other people
regardless of my feelings about those people controlling their actions
toward still other people. *IAC, while Islamic law and the Taliban are
related, a government based upon a general term of "Islamic law" is not
automatically the Taliban, radical, or otherwise negative in any
objective sense I can see. *There are plenty of people who can choose
and have chosen to live under such a government and are not, even in a
"western-centric"/common law/secular/whatever sense, "radicals."







i
also don't think that lends support to your claim. if we have to deal
with taliban as the governing authority in any country, there won't be
effective diplomatic negotiations for innumerable reasons - apostasy the
least of them, imo. you may call that a secular, western-centric,
law-view ... i think it's a view shared by many muslims. lunatics can't
be reasoned with...we have experience with our own as well. i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmm...I have not and do not suggest that those who see apostation of
Islam is a severe crime are lunatics or zealots. *You're a legal scholar
- read some of the controlling language in the Quran from a couple of
translations and see what your objective interpretation might be. *But I
think you may be underestimating and/or misunderstanding exactly how
serious, rigid, and controlling Islamic laws are to Muslims (not all, of
course, but the majority). *Islam ain't Joel Osteen's
Roll-Yer-Own-Feelgood-Religion, with a little "Shout to the Lord"
playing in the background...say what you will, the large percentage of
Muslims take their religion, um, religiously...

i'm not a scholar of any kind. *in fact, i think i'm quite dim on this
and many other subjects. however,i think i understand the concept of
merging religious didactics with government, and the concept of an
islamic state, i.e., the problem with separation of powers, rule of law,
and governing principles. however, the reality of *international
relations and pressures seem to munge the "religiously religious" with
what's practical and necessary.

Um, what does the source of the law have to do with one being faithful
to it? *Heck, one doesn't need to compare Islamic law to whatever
secular law to understand that those who believe in a particular system
take it to heart - for example, how strongly do you feel about the US
and NC Constitutions? *How'd you feel about some Islamic cleric being
allowed to interpret things under them as he felt they ought to be? *Too
radical a thought? *You want an Irish solicitor telling NC lawyers about
how libel laws ought to be? *Still too far, pardon the pun, abroad? *How
about Louisiana notaries ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So your back working for the RNC and Carl Rove and going to be
swiftboating Obama till the election. It will be tragic if he wins,
your pickle sales for the Haliburger will go to zero pretty fast.
Nothing lower than a war profiteer, they don't even post something as
OT.
If ROFFIANS were to send you pickle lables how many would it take to
get you to shut the **** up??

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

A weird dilemma for Obama...plus redneck
 

"Jeff" wrote in message --plus many others about
Obama's dilemma--I have tried to follow and understand the questions,
opinions, answers discussed without much understanding and a real lack of
knowledge about the opinions offered. Puts me in a bad position to form an
opinion about the said dilemma and even worse to GUESS what is going to
happen to our world in the future.
I guess like many Americans we blame Bush for getting us in the current war,
and don"t see any of the current presidential hopefuls with a plan to get us
out. I have had a good nation to live in for 77 years and am afraid my two
grandsons will not have the same.
So I went up to this lady standing behind me in the check out lane at the
library today--she had dark skin and a towel thing wrapped around her head.
She did not look dangerous and I was not armed so I said hi and ask her what
she was reading.In a slightly accented voice she offered that her current
interest was our future national shortage of water and the ensuring water
rights wars we could expect in our country. Both books she way s checking
out were by Wallace Stegner. I offered that I'm very concerned about the
Artic area where last summer a Russian mini-sub dropped a flag on the sea
bottom and stated "The Artic is Ours"! She said a U.N commission of
scientists has started to analyze Artic claims.The Arctic's wealth
may include 25% 0f the earth's oil and gas reserves---but a group of our
senators have blocked our joining into a U.N. treaty . Sen. David Vitter
( R,La ) says it would "hand a portion of our national security matters to
the U.N.
The lady at the desk said next, so I hurried forward to check out my
selection--"55-LOVE-DOUBLES STRATEGY FOR SENIORS."
















t

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

wrote in message
...
Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic."

several thoughts at once occurred while digesting this short bit of prose
above:
1. How much more of a 'great Satan' can the US become
in the eyes of those who would be readily led in that
direction?
2. Why is it inherently necessary that the US president be
making 'demands' of any sort on Islamic or any
government, under most circumstances? In fact, the
collective attitude that we have the right to demand of
others in such a fashion has probably contributed much
to some of the problems which the US has, notably in
the Middle East.
3. This statement, as a part of this whole thread suggests
that none of us really has much of a clue how the Muslim
world will react to the topic at hand, or much of
anything within that culture. Perhaps this illustrates why,
to as great an extent as possible, we, as a nation, might
do well to avoid interjecting ourselves into that culture.
It hasn't worked well to date, and I see no reason to
expect great change anytime soon......

Tom

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

wrote in message
...
The real issue isn't a single issue at all,
it's a whole situation. And no, it isn't Bush's fault, Bill Clinton's
fault, or any other single person or country's fault. And no, McCain,
Obama, and Clinton, together or individually, aren't gonna "fix" it. Get
used to THAT.

and that's the Inconvenient Truth...to borrow a phrase...
well put.

Tom

p.s. R: If you find the time, drop me an email.

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:19:57 -0700 (PDT), BJ Conner
wrote:

So your back working for the RNC and Carl Rove and going to be
swiftboating Obama till the election. It will be tragic if he wins,
your pickle sales for the Haliburger will go to zero pretty fast.
Nothing lower than a war profiteer, they don't even post something as
OT.
If ROFFIANS were to send you pickle lables how many would it take to
get you to shut the **** up??

Clearly, it is easiest to just ignore his prattle, and hope he gets bored with
the silence. Responding just makes you another tar baby victim...

/daytripper (can spot worthless prattle from a thousand miles away)

Re OT: A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On 3-Jun-2008, BJ Conner wrote:

Nothing lower than a war profiteer, they don't even post something as
OT.
If ROFFIANS were to send you pickle lables how many would it take to
get you to shut the **** up??

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred

Re OT: A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On 3-Jun-2008, wrote:

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred

In case I am misunderstood

"shove them up HIS OWN rectum!"

A weird dilemma for Obama...plus redneck
 

Joe McIntosh wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message --plus many others about
Obama's dilemma--I have tried to follow and understand the questions,
opinions, answers discussed without much understanding and a real lack of
knowledge about the opinions offered. Puts me in a bad position to form an
opinion about the said dilemma and even worse to GUESS what is going to
happen to our world in the future.
I guess like many Americans we blame Bush for getting us in the current war,
and don"t see any of the current presidential hopefuls with a plan to get us
out. I have had a good nation to live in for 77 years and am afraid my two
grandsons will not have the same.
So I went up to this lady standing behind me in the check out lane at the
library today--she had dark skin and a towel thing wrapped around her head.
She did not look dangerous and I was not armed so I said hi and ask her what
she was reading.In a slightly accented voice she offered that her current
interest was our future national shortage of water and the ensuring water
rights wars we could expect in our country. Both books she way s checking
out were by Wallace Stegner. I offered that I'm very concerned about the
Artic area where last summer a Russian mini-sub dropped a flag on the sea
bottom and stated "The Artic is Ours"! She said a U.N commission of
scientists has started to analyze Artic claims.The Arctic's wealth
may include 25% 0f the earth's oil and gas reserves---but a group of our
senators have blocked our joining into a U.N. treaty . Sen. David Vitter
( R,La ) says it would "hand a portion of our national security matters to
the U.N.
The lady at the desk said next, so I hurried forward to check out my
selection--"55-LOVE-DOUBLES STRATEGY FOR SENIORS."


as cogent, insightful, and brilliant a comment as i've read in a while.
thanks. g

jeff (of course, i'm currently listening to the cryptkeeper a/k/a mccain
deliver a phony, lame, and flat speech in louisiana, utilizing the
creepiest of grins i've ever seen on national teevee.)

OT A weird dilemma for Obama...plus redneck
 

On 3-Jun-2008, jeff miller wrote:

eff (of course, i'm currently listening to the cryptkeeper a/k/a mccain
deliver a phony, lame, and flat speech in louisiana, utilizing the
creepiest of grins i've ever seen on national teevee.)



McCain has been dead for at least 15 years now
What you see is just a sad and pathetic shadow of the ass he always was.
Yet he is still dangerous and as a Prez candidate a sad joke on the US
public.

Fred

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:20:31 -0400, Jeff wrote:

wrote:


the age of and reasons for the renunciation seem to be considered, and,
if being an apostate is not to have any temporal punishment or
consequence, then it seems a meaningless issue in the context of
diplomatic relations...no?

No. Age is a consideration in the application of "earthly" punishment
(obviously, for that minority who interpret that there should be no
earthly punishment, age isn't a consideration in a non-existent earthly
punishment). A minor who apostates is held until majority and then
punished as an adult - similar to various jurisdictions that incarcerate
as a minor and transfer to "adult" prison for the remander of the
sentence. But he didn't apostate (only) as a minor, so age is no longer
material.

my point is the "flexibility" of interpretation involved in the whole
apostasy dynamic and within the context of an obama presidency.
Apparently Egypt doesn't have an apostasy law, instead having laws about
"insulting" Islam. Why is that?

Probably Bush's fault...seriously, though, I can think of no reason that
this or that nation must have a particular law, be it based on Islam,
English common law, the Napoleonic Code, or whatever. I'd offer that
Egyptians are entitled to have whatever internal laws they might wish,
or, in the alternative, individuals can address those laws as they see
fit.

If obama is an apostate, as you contend he must be, then what do you
contend is the mandatory response governments of the islamic countries
must have in dealing with him and the country he leads?

None whatsoever - I make no contention that any government _must_ have
any response to anything the POTUS might do. It's a rare thing that
people find themselves as head of government (as opposed to head of
state) by accidental means and against their will and desire. IOW, they
got there because they are politicians desirous of power. Therefore,
the great likelihood is that they are inclined to be, um, politically
realistic, at least on a personal level, insofar as understanding that a
US leader's religious history is probably not an area into which good
politics would lead. OTOH, given the seriousness of apostasy for many
Muslims - individuals "civilians," clerics, and the public face of the
internally-realistic leaders - I can at least see the possibility that
it could become an issue.

You seem to
argue the label alone demands a specific temporal response by all true
muslim governments.

Again, I don't "demand" or even "expect" any government, secular, "true
Muslim," or weekend-casual Muslim, to have a particular response. I
would offer, however, that the response of those governed will play into
the response of the government...you know, sorta like when a relative
minority get the US Congress to do something stupid to appease them...

I acknowledge radical muslims will act, uh, in a
radical manner. From my brief reading, it appears most of the apostasy
issues and problems arise in non-government contexts - generally invoked
by those most muslims consider fanatics. there are some exceptions, as
you noted.

Hmmm...exceptium firmat regulam... or, quod si exceptio facit ne liceat
ibi necesse est licere...interestingly, involving a political mess
involving, well, politics and at least as an aside, religion...


i suppose you can construct a socratic
example that will require admissions from your audience, and if you
simply want a possibility acknowledged...no problem. but, in reality, i
still think it highly improbable that "obama the apostate" will deter a
more normal diplomacy with muslim governments, including our so-called
enemies.

Now this is a different matter - "highly improbable" isn't "impossible"
and it certainly doesn't speak to potential. I readily acknowledge that
I don't, right here, right now, with current information, see it as some
inevitable major aspect of a potential Obama Presidency. But it would
appear that I think it has "more legs" than you do, but any potential
for it becoming an issue is based on what a President Obama might or
does do with regard to Islamic governments, what governments either
become Islamic or secular, and what ordinary Muslims do or are inspired
to do by their various leaders. Potential and probability are not
inextricably linked nor is one calculable from the value of the other.
IOW, if you throw a lit match into a bucket of gasoline, the probability
is low that it'll explode, but the energy potential of the gasoline is
still pretty high.

i concede all apostasy possibilities you choose to suggest... I just
don't agree they are likely g.

what about the whole rabid
"infidel" thing?

What about it?

what does islamic law say about defining and dealing with infidels?

It depends on who is doing the interpreting, but I'd suggest Rachel not
wear her "I'm with the infidel" t-shirt on your next Middle Eastern
vacation...

My suggestion would be to do a brief scan of what a
Google search pulls up with regard to apostates prior to, say, 2005 to
avoid any possible, er, "Obamatization" from any front (but look into
the Afghan thing with the guy who had to be declared incompetent to
avoid execution - I don't recall the exact date, but it has been
recently). Again, this issue isn't something that just popped up
because of Obama.

i didn't say it did. I merely disagreed that it was a valid concern for
an obama presidency in dealing diplomatically with the muslim world and
governments.

Ah, well, see, it's all about who is doing the interpreting...

i'm not "imposing" any particular view. i acknowledge my limits as a
western world non-muslim with little experience or education regarding
the muslim world. i do recognize how some use their own notions of
religious mandates to justify, criticize, and avoid - but that isn't
limited to islam...nor does it seem to propel or control current
international diplomacy. still, i don't think my opinion is a stretch
(that your obama-the-apostate issue won't impact relations between our
country and a muslim country as much as a hawkish, non-muslim, mccain
presidency), while your position demands a radical islam rule akin to
the taliban. i don't think iran or egypt or iraq will be radicalized by
apostasy views in the conduct of their diplomatic and international
relations. while i have no doubt there could be resort to any bizarre
interpretation that advances an agenda (viz. the whole "torture" issue
in this country), i doubt the interpretations of apostasy will serve to
affect obama's effectiveness in his diplomatic efforts in dealing with
the muslim world.

...and, to answer your question directly, i think the taliban would have
killed him, and would have killed you, me, my wife, and billy graham.

Well, I can't and won't speak for you, your wife, or Billy, but I have
not apostated Islam (and would not do so) and I can think of nothing
I've done to warrant a death sentence under Islamic law as it is
generally interpreted by the majority of Islamic scholars, including
those in the Taliban. I mean, I wouldn't imagine being a favored member
of the populace or anything, but OTOH, I wouldn't imagine a great deal
of individually-focused trouble, either.

oh c'mon richard ... of the outspoken infidels named above, you'd be the
first killed. g the point is...taliban ain't healthy for any
loud-mouthed or principled non-muslim living under taliban domination.
of course, it doesn't appear american is healthy for muslims living
under american domination either.

Principled and loud-mouthed is one thing, apostation and/or insulting
Islam is another. I have no reason to insult Islam because I respect
the right of Muslims to their faith. I feel they are absolutely correct
in their beliefs insofar as for themselves, but I also feel that Jews,
Catholics, Hindi, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas, etc. are, too. I don't have
the slightest desire to control or denigrate the faith of other people
regardless of my feelings about those people controlling their actions
toward still other people. IAC, while Islamic law and the Taliban are
related, a government based upon a general term of "Islamic law" is not
automatically the Taliban, radical, or otherwise negative in any
objective sense I can see. There are plenty of people who can choose
and have chosen to live under such a government and are not, even in a
"western-centric"/common law/secular/whatever sense, "radicals."

i thought we were talking the taliban interpretation of islam...at least
that was the context of your original "what if" question and my answer.
my answer assumes we are all infidels (non-believers). ...and, given
your persona as i have experienced it here, i doubt you would accept the
human rights violations and discrimination mandated by the
taliban...thus, i expect you'd be quickly identified and executed. If
Islam is interpreted to require the death of infidels and apostates, and
if Islam is interpreted to require the stoning death of an adulterous
woman, as you suggest in your apostasy argument about obama, do you
still say you have "no reason to insult Islam"...do you then still
respect the right to commit such acts in the name of Islam?

Yes, insofar as with regard to those who knew what they were getting
into when they went into it with their eyes open. And no, I don't
understand Catholics who wish to make the Catholic church into the
Episcopal Church, either - if you don't want to live under Islamic rule,
do what most in a similar situation do - save up your fares and buy a
U-Rob'em from an Asian in a nice Mexican or black neighborhood in the US
city of your choice...

also don't think that lends support to your claim. if we have to deal
with taliban as the governing authority in any country, there won't be
effective diplomatic negotiations for innumerable reasons - apostasy the
least of them, imo. you may call that a secular, western-centric,
law-view ... i think it's a view shared by many muslims. lunatics can't
be reasoned with...we have experience with our own as well. i don't
accept the notion that the majority of muslims or their governments are
WTT-bombing lunatics and religious zealots when it comes to dealing with
the world community.

Hmmm...I have not and do not suggest that those who see apostation of
Islam is a severe crime are lunatics or zealots. You're a legal scholar
- read some of the controlling language in the Quran from a couple of
translations and see what your objective interpretation might be. But I
think you may be underestimating and/or misunderstanding exactly how
serious, rigid, and controlling Islamic laws are to Muslims (not all, of
course, but the majority). Islam ain't Joel Osteen's
Roll-Yer-Own-Feelgood-Religion, with a little "Shout to the Lord"
playing in the background...say what you will, the large percentage of
Muslims take their religion, um, religiously...
i'm not a scholar of any kind. in fact, i think i'm quite dim on this
and many other subjects. however,i think i understand the concept of
merging religious didactics with government, and the concept of an
islamic state, i.e., the problem with separation of powers, rule of law,
and governing principles. however, the reality of international
relations and pressures seem to munge the "religiously religious" with
what's practical and necessary.

Um, what does the source of the law have to do with one being faithful
to it?

Um...indeed. If the source is founded on religious principles and
interpretations mandating the subjugation and/or denial of fundamental
human rights...i'd say it has a lot to do with it. but, i do understand
your blind devotion theory.

IOW, you want them ragheaded sumbitches to do things your way...the
western way...the good old-fashioned American way...you say
"subjugation," others say the way of God. I respect your right to see
it your way, but I also respect their right to see it their way.

Heck, one doesn't need to compare Islamic law to whatever
secular law to understand that those who believe in a particular system
take it to heart - for example, how strongly do you feel about the US
and NC Constitutions? How'd you feel about some Islamic cleric being
allowed to interpret things under them as he felt they ought to be? Too
radical a thought? You want an Irish solicitor telling NC lawyers about
how libel laws ought to be? Still too far, pardon the pun, abroad? How
about Louisiana notaries public doing civil law work in NC? The
principle of law and the source thereof aren't the same thing. Another
example - Erie with regard to state law in federal court.

i thought we were talking about obama's apostasy and its likely effect
on his ability to engage and deal with islamic countries and
governments. We were acknowledging, or attempting to acknowledge, in
our discussion our respective perceptions and opinions about the
realities of the islamic-controlled government's conduct in exercising
diplomatic relations with obama should he be elected prez. i've not
suggested Iran or Egypt would or should follow or apply US principles or
laws. I have suggested they will not be constrained by apostasy or
other similar narrow (and, I believe, radical) interpretations of
religious doctrine in their participation in diplomatic relations with a
US government under an Obama presidency.

And again, I'd agree that the gist of what you say is true - that the
"likelihood" is that politicians will be politicians, and if the other
guy likes to screw goats while ****ting on sacred religious texts, but
if the reward is large enough, a deal will be done...OTOH...

In fact, I suspect we will have
more successful diplomatic relations under Obama than under McBush.

I suspect we would have diplomatic relations with all the important
players if David Duke were Prez - politicians come and go, but civil
servants are forever...


hell richard, i've been in the realm of pentecostal snake-handlers and
southern baptists most of my life. g

And yet, you think highly improbable that religion might enter into
things...?!?!


never said that...religion enters into things all too often and in some
of the phoniest and craziest ways. my statement acknowledged the
insanity exhibited in the name of religion. what i said and meant to
say if i didn't make it clear - it's highly improbable the
islam/apostasy thingy will pose a problem for Obama in dealing with the
government officials of islamic countries if he is our president. i
know there is probably an ibn-al-sadr who believes it his religious duty
to kill obama, just as i suspect there is some white john smith in a
barbed wire compound in Northern Idaho who believes the same. i just
don't think either represents religion or law or the diplomatic
philosophy of any country.

Well, hey, as a really far-out dude once said: religion sucks (yeah,
yeah, yeah...but no...I take artistic license...)...unless it's
yours....

jeff (whose spouse just revealed she dreamed last night that she was a
stick of butter...)

Um, you didn't pretend you were Marlon Brando, did you...? HEY! WAIT!
I got it - butter is oily, cars can be "sticks" and need oil, and
gasoline is made from oil...QUICK! Check the gas gauge and the oil
level!


G yeah, i was looking for that "favorable" erotic psychoanalytical
interpretation and application too.

Er...perhaps some Anais Nin, a particularly nice Bordeaux, and some
Astroglide...application optional...

TC,
R

And on a related note - apostate or otherwise, it's a damned fine night
for "America" (yeah, **** it, I'll be a bit America-centric) - whatever
else happens, the US has come a long way, baby...a guy with a black
African father and a white mom from Kansas has gotten a damned decent
share of support from a big chunk of US voters, and thus far, not a
dumbass with a firehose, dog, or cut-up bedsheet in sight...now, if he
can just live up to his hype...

jeff

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:42:22 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic."

several thoughts at once occurred while digesting this short bit of prose
above:
1. How much more of a 'great Satan' can the US become
in the eyes of those who would be readily led in that
direction?

OK, I'll play...how much more...?

2. Why is it inherently necessary that the US president be
making 'demands' of any sort on Islamic or any
government, under most circumstances?

Shirley...you jest - you somehow figure the US isn't gonna be making
demands, um, right, left, and, well, center...? And I'm pretty sure
that no one making the demand is gonna be overly concerned about the
religion of any of the demandees...at least not internally, anyway...

In fact, the collective attitude that we have the right to demand of
others in such a fashion has probably contributed much
to some of the problems which the US has, notably in
the Middle East.

Oh, ****...not you, too...what the hell is it with the weatisms...maybe
some weoplasty or a weectomy is in order...either that, or a usisism or
some theyacilin - something....

IAC, if you mean "we" to include all of the folks that tend to feel
secure in their right to demand that all others conform to whatever it
is they happen to think is the think others need to conform to at any
given time, then, yes. If you mean something else, maybe...or not...

IOW, everyone wants their own Godamned way...

3. This statement, as a part of this whole thread suggests
that none of us really has much of a clue how the Muslim
world will react to the topic at hand,

Wells sure...we're talking about, what, 1.5 billion ****in' people
spread out over, what, the planet or something...how the hell is anyone
gonna speak for all of them...? And that's a big part of my argument:
nobody - repeat - nobody has any special insight into how so many people
might react to anything. The potential very large subsets of groups
that large is simply outside accurate prediction. Would you bet much on
a race of a billion horses when you knew little or nothing about over
999 million of them...?

or much of
anything within that culture. Perhaps this illustrates why,
to as great an extent as possible, we, as a nation, might
do well to avoid interjecting ourselves into that culture.
It hasn't worked well to date, and I see no reason to
expect great change anytime soon......

Interjection is one thing, consideration is another.

TC,
R

Tom

Re OT: A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 01:02:16 GMT, wrote:


On 3-Jun-2008, wrote:

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred

In case I am misunderstood

"shove them up HIS OWN rectum!"

You being misunderstood? Perish the thought. You're way to concise for
that to happen... Of all your posts, this is the one you choose to
correct? Odd.

Don

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:52:35 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

forgotten a lot, but not that... or similar images of radical conduct at
a high school in little rock, arkansas... not sure it's pertinent to
the point though. why do you think they hate us dave?

Our support (rightfully so!) of Israel sure doesn't help our cause.
The fact that we are not a muslim nation also doesn't help. And, of
course, we are the rich guy on the block; everyone hates rich people.
d;o)


good to hear tales of the rapid and your times there. do you go down to
the place where the old dam building was removed?

Fished it the other day. Not too much happening. A few small
brookies (12 inchers) and some nice salmon. The currents at the
island are fishing very well, as is the wing dam pool.

I took a "worth-the-trip" brookie at the dam late yesterday in pouring
rain on a modified PT. The flow is at 400 (you can wade just about
anywhere) and at that flow I can get to water that is not normally
fished with a good presentation/drift. Cast over a rock and pulled
the fly up and over it until it dropped in front of the rock into a
nice little hole. BAM! A 4 - 5 pound female brookie took the size 18
nymph and I netted her about 4 minutes later. She was not a happy
camper. Some very big salmon are also being hooked. I lost several
yesterday fishing dries in the rain. Harry's "Killer Caddis" is now
my go-to fly.

i have a special
memory of a large brook trout i caught on a streamer just below the dam
and in view of that old house perched up on the bluff. the streamer
looked like part of the fender from a buick, created and loaned to me by
our canadian friend peter. he also showed me how to fish streamers in
that current.

I miss Peter, especially up here. His knowledge of streamer fishing
is unmatched. I bought some wet flies and was swinging them in the
currents yesterday. Took some nice salmon with them. Of course I
thought of Peter while doing it.

i miss those pleasant times at that place. but...i've
been fishing for puppy drum and enjoying a renewed experience with the
sal****er scene. haven't seen any reports of your friend ken's redfish
adventure in louisiana, but you should give that kind of fishing a go.
if you think a big brookie or salmon in the river currents can pull,
wait until you get one of those swimming anvils on your line.

I just can't get into the salt thingy. I have tried and caught some
nice stipers, but my love is wading in a stream and catching trout. or
salmon. Pull? Try a Russian 32 inch rainbow. d;o)

Jenny has discovered water, including mud puddles. She loves it up
here almost as much as we do.

Dave

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:39:11 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 3, 5:22*am, wrote:

IAC, a whole lot of Yankees aren't all that bright, anyway...



No argument from me on that one. And it extends both south and west.
And to the right and left.

But as far as the apostate thing; it seems to have a high degree of
swiftboating in it. And as for the rest of Islam, there is already a
precedent with a supposedly apostate leader (who even denounced Islam
after he was an adult), and there were no problems with his
denoucement of Islam.

From http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286

"But would Muslims seeing Obama as a murtadd significantly affect an
Obama presidency? The only precedent to judge by is that of Carlos
Saúl Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999. The son of
two Muslim Syrian immigrants and husband of another Syrian-Argentine,
Zulema Fátima Yoma, Menem converted to Roman Catholicism. His wife
said publicly that Menem left Islam for political reasons—because
Argentinean law until 1994 required the president of the country to be
a member of the Church. From a Muslim point of view, Menem's
conversion is worse than Obama's, having been done as an adult.
Nonetheless, Menem was not threatened or otherwise made to pay a price
for his change of religion, even during his trips to majority-Muslim
countries, Syria in particular."

Er, OK...are you suggesting Obama's "conversion" to Christianity was
just a bunch of politically-motivated bull**** and that he intends to
lean toward Muslim/Arab interests, be anti-Semitic, and be generally
corrupt...?

IAC, Menem was a pal of Bush 41 and we all know that the Bushes and the
Saudi royal family are in total cahoots on everything from oil to
apostasy...IOW, Menem didn't really "convert" - they got some ex-Nazis
in on it and the Pope was in on it, too...he's a Freemason Bones and
Skuller. Anyways, for those in the inner circle, "religion" doesn't
really matter, anyway...

Are you serious? The guy who was president of Argentina in the 80s?
What's next - the Grand Duke of Luxembourg is Hindu...?

Oh, and whoever wrote the quote above might have been served by doing a
little research into the whole matter...


Again, I'm not stating uncategorically that whether or not Obama is an
apostate, or whether or not that will be something to address is a non-
issue, but I'm quite comfortable that it IS a non-issue. And until I
hear even the slightest breath about it from the mouth of an actual
Muslim leader, I'm going to assume its just hypothetical mutterings
from a segment of American society with a ulterior motives.

What segment would that be and what do you imagine those "ulterior
motives" to be?

TC,
R

--riverman

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

A weird dilemma for Obama...
 

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:06:20 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
interpretation and application too.


Er...perhaps some Anais Nin, a particularly nice Bordeaux, and some
Astroglide...application optional...

TC,
R

And on a related note - apostate or otherwise, it's a damned fine night
for "America" (yeah, **** it, I'll be a bit America-centric) - whatever
else happens, the US has come a long way, baby...a guy with a black
African father and a white mom from Kansas has gotten a damned decent
share of support from a big chunk of US voters, and thus far, not a
dumbass with a firehose, dog, or cut-up bedsheet in sight...now, if he
can just live up to his hype...


i knew we'd find common ground somewhere in all of this! g

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/op...ewanted=2&_r=1

I particularly liked the part about how Islamic law doesn't apply to "an
American"...maybe that's how Menem beat a date with the sword of
justice...

Seriously, though, read the above with a critical, objective eye - a
couple of things I noted were that none of the scholars quoted seemed to
willing to come right out and say, "Obama's not an apostate and even if
he were, it doesn't matter because Islam doesn't address it and Muslims
don't care about such things..." and that the "it doesn't matter" crowd
(of non-Muslims) in the US suggest that no one in the Middle East cares
because it hasn't been reported by the news there...

TC,
R



jeff