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