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??