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