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