A weird dilemma for Obama...

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:13:30 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

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.

Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic." One need look no further than the situations of human
rights issues involved in US/Chinese relations, with regard to Tibet and
otherwise, N. Korean/US relations, etc. for examples of how the populace
of these countries might wish their leaders to act. As an example,
let's imagine that Obama is President and an American citizen, say a
teacher, is found to be equating Mohammed to a teddy bear in an Islamic
country. The US then issues a formal protest. To some, this could be
see as an apostate "insulting Islam" by demanding that an Islamic
country and people are not entitled to follow Islamic law as the protest
would naturally be that the law/ruling is "wrong." Granted, it might be
superficially all diplo-bureaucratic-speak, but the gist would be that
the law in question was "wrong." Clinton, McCain or Joe "the
Episcopalian" Doe doing so would be one thing, but an apostate doing it
an entirely different matter. Again, I'm not suggesting that the above
would (or should) put Obama in personal danger, but I would offer that
it could readily lead to, um, diplomatic situations.

And no, I don't think US voters should make this issue the key factor or
even a major factor, but I do think those that consider it in the scheme
of things are reasonable in doing so. Just as I'd say it was fair to
consider McCain's age and temperament in the scheme of things. Just as
I'd say it would be fair to consider that Hillary Clinton is lying,
amoral, unethical schemer in, um, the scheme of things...

I think there is a tremendous amount of Xenophobia in America right
now, especially towards Muslims,

Assuming you mean the US, I'd agree that there is a degree of
anti-Muslim feeling in "America." But I'd offer that there is as much
or more genuine fear (as well as justified objective concern) of Islamic
"radicalism" in much of the west - look to situations in France,
Denmark, etc. And this brings up a point - many of those who decry Bush
allege that his actions with regard to "world opinion" are extremely
important - that he personally has caused "world opinion" of the US to
be diminished. If that's fair game, why is unfair to consider the
possibility that Obama's apostation could be a grave and serious offense
to something like 20% of the world's population, and that those people
are specifically those with whom most of the serious issues are? And
further, that even allowing that his apostation isn't itself all that
serious, combined with a perceived insult to Islam, it becomes a grave
irreparable issue?

and much of what is being bantered
about about Obama as an apostate is based on partial knowledge, at
best, of Islam.

Heck, I'd offer that much of what is being "bantered about" about Obama
is pure political gamesmanship as well as downright nonsense. Same is
true of Clinton, McCain, etc. But I'd also offer that there is no
question that calling Obama an apostate is objectively defensible via
the direct rulings of the majority of Islamic scholars (for example, I'd
offer that even scholars like Tantawi would hold that Obama an apostate
while also holding that his apostation alone is not grounds for "earthly
consequences"). It is only the possible consequences that are open to
debate, even among Islamic scholars, rulers, clerics, and perhaps most
importantly, ordinary "lay" Muslims.

TC,
R

--riverman

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:29:15 -0400, 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.

Huh? While I'd agree that there were scenes of relatively small crowds
"cheering," I'd offer that the vast majority of Muslims were shocked and
horrified at the loss of life. I'd further offer that many Muslims feel
that such broad action is an insult to Islam. IAC, 9/11 had absolutely
nothing to do with Obama and/or his apostation, and I think suggesting
that a repeat is likely based solely upon it is W-A-A-A-A-Y out there.
No, further than that. Nope, further still...

They don't like us,
Jeff. It fact, they hate us.

"They?" OK, name "them." And which "us" are you talking about? Name
them, too, please. While I'd agree that some Muslims do "hate" certain
other groups that may include you, me, jeff, etc., I'd suggest that
Muslims "hating" "Americans" isn't the real issue behind 9/11 and
similar attacks worldwide. The real issue isn't a single issue at all,
it's a whole situation. And no, it isn't Bush's fault, Bill Clinton's
fault, or any other single person or country's fault. And no, McCain,
Obama, and Clinton, together or individually, aren't gonna "fix" it. Get
used to THAT.

Get used to it. It will be around for
the next hundred years or so.

Unless you have a crystal ball, I'd offer that something that has been
going on for over two thousand years isn't likely to be solved - really
- in the next hundred...at least not in a fashion many are going to like
or approve of...

Either they win and everyone goes back
to the Middle Ages, or civilization wins.

Or nobody wins...and most everybody loses...martyrs and those who
actually get a passel of virgins, excepted, perhaps...

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

Leaky waders, huh...?

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.

There's a special running around on one of the "educational" channels -
Frank, Joao, and Ella - I only saw part and didn't see Astrid, but what
I saw, I liked - check your local listings, as "they" say...

TC,
R

Dave

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 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.

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...?!?!

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!

TC,
R

TC,
R

jeff

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??

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

"Jeff" wrote in message --plus many others about
Obama's dilemma--I have tried to follow and understand the questions,
opinions, answers discussed without much understanding and a real lack of
knowledge about the opinions offered. Puts me in a bad position to form an
opinion about the said dilemma and even worse to GUESS what is going to
happen to our world in the future.
I guess like many Americans we blame Bush for getting us in the current war,
and don"t see any of the current presidential hopefuls with a plan to get us
out. I have had a good nation to live in for 77 years and am afraid my two
grandsons will not have the same.
So I went up to this lady standing behind me in the check out lane at the
library today--she had dark skin and a towel thing wrapped around her head.
She did not look dangerous and I was not armed so I said hi and ask her what
she was reading.In a slightly accented voice she offered that her current
interest was our future national shortage of water and the ensuring water
rights wars we could expect in our country. Both books she way s checking
out were by Wallace Stegner. I offered that I'm very concerned about the
Artic area where last summer a Russian mini-sub dropped a flag on the sea
bottom and stated "The Artic is Ours"! She said a U.N commission of
scientists has started to analyze Artic claims.The Arctic's wealth
may include 25% 0f the earth's oil and gas reserves---but a group of our
senators have blocked our joining into a U.N. treaty . Sen. David Vitter
( R,La ) says it would "hand a portion of our national security matters to
the U.N.
The lady at the desk said next, so I hurried forward to check out my
selection--"55-LOVE-DOUBLES STRATEGY FOR SENIORS."
















t

wrote in message
...
Ah...I'd offer the problem is what definition of "threat" one is using.
I'd further offer that "threat" isn't limited to a personal physical
threat against Obama, but rather, the "threat" posed against the US in
general from possible complications resulting from Muslims "seeing" (or
admittedly, being steered toward such a conclusion by vested Muslim
interests) the "great Satan" US having elected an apostate as leader and
then, "insulting Islam" by having him (Obama as leader and him
personally) make demands of Islamic governments that are arguably
"anti-Islamic."

several thoughts at once occurred while digesting this short bit of prose
above:
1. How much more of a 'great Satan' can the US become
in the eyes of those who would be readily led in that
direction?
2. Why is it inherently necessary that the US president be
making 'demands' of any sort on Islamic or any
government, under most circumstances? In fact, the
collective attitude that we have the right to demand of
others in such a fashion has probably contributed much
to some of the problems which the US has, notably in
the Middle East.
3. This statement, as a part of this whole thread suggests
that none of us really has much of a clue how the Muslim
world will react to the topic at hand, or much of
anything within that culture. Perhaps this illustrates why,
to as great an extent as possible, we, as a nation, might
do well to avoid interjecting ourselves into that culture.
It hasn't worked well to date, and I see no reason to
expect great change anytime soon......

Tom

wrote in message
...
The real issue isn't a single issue at all,
it's a whole situation. And no, it isn't Bush's fault, Bill Clinton's
fault, or any other single person or country's fault. And no, McCain,
Obama, and Clinton, together or individually, aren't gonna "fix" it. Get
used to THAT.

and that's the Inconvenient Truth...to borrow a phrase...
well put.

Tom

p.s. R: If you find the time, drop me an email.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:19:57 -0700 (PDT), BJ Conner
wrote:

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??

Clearly, it is easiest to just ignore his prattle, and hope he gets bored with
the silence. Responding just makes you another tar baby victim...

/daytripper (can spot worthless prattle from a thousand miles away)

On 3-Jun-2008, BJ Conner wrote:

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??

A man with whom I finally certainly agree
Why doesn't rdean take his fat ass and his political BS somewhere else or
shove them up rectum!

Fred