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?

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


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?

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.

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?

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.

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


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.

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.

jeff