A weird dilemma for Obama...

On Jun 3, 5:22*am, wrote:

IAC, a whole lot of Yankees aren't all that bright, anyway...



No argument from me on that one. And it extends both south and west.
And to the right and left.

But as far as the apostate thing; it seems to have a high degree of
swiftboating in it. And as for the rest of Islam, there is already a
precedent with a supposedly apostate leader (who even denounced Islam
after he was an adult), and there were no problems with his
denoucement of Islam.

From http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286

"But would Muslims seeing Obama as a murtadd significantly affect an
Obama presidency? The only precedent to judge by is that of Carlos
Saúl Menem, the president of Argentina from 1989 to 1999. The son of
two Muslim Syrian immigrants and husband of another Syrian-Argentine,
Zulema Fátima Yoma, Menem converted to Roman Catholicism. His wife
said publicly that Menem left Islam for political reasons—because
Argentinean law until 1994 required the president of the country to be
a member of the Church. From a Muslim point of view, Menem's
conversion is worse than Obama's, having been done as an adult.
Nonetheless, Menem was not threatened or otherwise made to pay a price
for his change of religion, even during his trips to majority-Muslim
countries, Syria in particular."


Again, I'm not stating uncategorically that whether or not Obama is an
apostate, or whether or not that will be something to address is a non-
issue, but I'm quite comfortable that it IS a non-issue. And until I
hear even the slightest breath about it from the mouth of an actual
Muslim leader, I'm going to assume its just hypothetical mutterings
from a segment of American society with a ulterior motives.

--riverman

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

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.

Hmmmm. How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. Cheering. Happy at our losses. They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us. Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

OTT, fishing is very good. Took several big brookies this a.m. on the
dreaded Green Rock Worm, several "lesser" ones, and four very nice
(18+ inch) landlocks on the same fly.

The water is warming up but there are no hatches. I am beginning to
fear that the &%$@(@ power company may have scoured the river with
high flows in late winter/early spring, sending all the bugs into the
woods where they died.

Joanne and Jenny are in camp. Spent the night around the fire
listening to Bebel Gilberto and her mom and dad, Astrid and Joao.

Dave

On Jun 3, 9:29*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller

wrote:
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.

Hmmmm. *How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? *News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. *Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. *Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. *Cheering. *Happy at our losses. *They don't like us,
Jeff. *It fact, they hate us. *Get used to it. *It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. *Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.


I don't remember that. I remember one picture of a bunch of kids in
Palestine, but that was rather spurious and easily written off the
adrenaline of youth being exposed to global affairs way beyond their
understanding. I would not be surprised if there were pictures from
other places, but I never saw "news footage from every muslim country
celebrarting our losses". And I give those pictures exactly as much
credibility for being representative of any 'national perspective' as
I do all the 'Kill them all, let God sort them out" hype that
Americans are famous for. With a bunch of minor exceptions, I don't
think all Americans hate muslims any more than I think all muslims
hate Americans. But there are certainly a lot of droolers on both
sides.

--riverman

jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

- JR

On Jun 3, 9:51*am, JR wrote:
jeff miller wrote:
wrote:
OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....
as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

- JR

LOL. I can see the cabinet now.....

--riverman

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:51:03 -0400, JR wrote:

jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I think he just didn't want to have to de-ice the Volvo windshields any
more...

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

And again, I don't think Obama is in any unusual physical danger over
this, but I can see how it can become a major issue _outside the US_.
Moreover, to label the issue as something new because of Obama, some GOP
tactic, "swiftboating," or anything like that is really off-base and
arguably, anti-Islamic. Apostasy has been an issue for Muslims and
Islam for centuries, up to and including today. And it's hypocritical
for westerners to dismiss it off-handedly as "extremist" -
western/secular governments have severe penalties, including death, for
(secular) treason and eastern, non-Islamic states impose the death
penalty for a variety of reasons that many in the US and the west don't
find "extreme" - i.e., they don't take particular exception as to the
state's ruling as to the severity of the crime even if they don't
support capital punishment for that crime. Therefore, if one recognizes
that people are free to choose to live in a state governed internally by
their choice of laws, be it secular, Islamic, or other religious law,
one looks pretty silly to then say that the state in question cannot
impose, in the context instant, Islamic law.

TC,
R

- JR

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

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".

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.

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.

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.
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...

TC,
R

jeff

On Jun 3, 11:48*am, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:51:03 -0400, JR wrote:
jeff miller wrote:
wrote:

OK, let me ask you this - if Obama had been just some guy in Afghanistan
during the Talibani control .....

as your previous links reveal, there appears substantial flexibility in
the interpretations employed by muslim scholars and clerics ...

Could be that stark terror over the repercussions of this
apostasy thingy is what led to the run for the presidency in the
first place.

I think he just didn't want to have to de-ice the Volvo windshields any
more...

I mean, I've heard pretty good protection comes with the job....

And again, I don't think Obama is in any unusual physical danger over
this, but I can see how it can become a major issue _outside the US_.
Moreover, to label the issue as something new because of Obama, some GOP
tactic, "swiftboating," or anything like that is really off-base and
arguably, anti-Islamic. *Apostasy has been an issue for Muslims and
Islam for centuries, up to and including today. *And it's hypocritical
for westerners to dismiss it off-handedly as "extremist" -
western/secular governments have severe penalties, including death, for
(secular) treason and eastern, non-Islamic states impose the death
penalty for a variety of reasons that many in the US and the west don't
find "extreme" - i.e., they don't take particular exception as to the
state's ruling as to the severity of the crime even if they don't
support capital punishment for that crime. *Therefore, if one recognizes
that people are free to choose to live in a state governed internally by
their choice of laws, be it secular, Islamic, or other religious law,
one looks pretty silly to then say that the state in question cannot
impose, in the context instant, Islamic law.

TC,
R



I hear you, but the entire point of your post above relies on the
premise that this Apostacy threat to Obama is legit, which I am not
prepared to do, in the absence of ANY evidence from ANY head of a
Muslim state.

I think there is a tremendous amount of Xenophobia in America right
now, especially towards Muslims, and much of what is being bantered
about about Obama as an apostate is based on partial knowledge, at
best, of Islam.

--riverman

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:00:56 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


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.


Hmmmm. How soon we forget....

Rememer post 9/11? News footage from every major Muslim country/city
celebrating our losses. Syria, Egypt, Saudi A., Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait. Hell, just about everywhere.
Celebrating. Cheering. Happy at our losses. They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us. Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so. Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

OTT, fishing is very good. Took several big brookies this a.m. on the
dreaded Green Rock Worm, several "lesser" ones, and four very nice
(18+ inch) landlocks on the same fly.

The water is warming up but there are no hatches. I am beginning to
fear that the &%$@(@ power company may have scoured the river with
high flows in late winter/early spring, sending all the bugs into the
woods where they died.

Joanne and Jenny are in camp. Spent the night around the fire
listening to Bebel Gilberto and her mom and dad, Astrid and Joao.

Dave



forgotten a lot, but not that... or similar images of radical conduct at
a high school in little rock, arkansas... not sure it's pertinent to
the point though. why do you think they hate us dave?

good to hear tales of the rapid and your times there. do you go down to
the place where the old dam building was removed? i have a special
memory of a large brook trout i caught on a streamer just below the dam
and in view of that old house perched up on the bluff. the streamer
looked like part of the fender from a buick, created and loaned to me by
our canadian friend peter. he also showed me how to fish streamers in
that current. i miss those pleasant times at that place. but...i've
been fishing for puppy drum and enjoying a renewed experience with the
sal****er scene. haven't seen any reports of your friend ken's redfish
adventure in louisiana, but you should give that kind of fishing a go.
if you think a big brookie or salmon in the river currents can pull,
wait until you get one of those swimming anvils on your line.

jeff

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? 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.



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?

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.

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.

hell richard, i've been in the realm of pentecostal snake-handlers and
southern baptists most of my life. g

jeff (whose spouse just revealed she dreamed last night that she was a
stick of butter...)

TC,
R

jeff