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". 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. ?

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. 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.

jeff