A weird dilemma for Obama...

riverman wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:14 am, wrote:

Obama now says he plans to go, or is thinking about going, to Iraq. He
has previously stated that he'd meet with Ahmedinejad, etc. Here's the
dilemma as I see it: Most members of the Iranian leadership, many Iraqi
leaders - in fact, a large part of the population of the Middle East,
among others - would seem to have a sacred duty (and a legal obligation)
to treat him as an apostate (and arguably, albeit a weak argument, as
one who denies the Christian and/or Jewish books as well, which is
equally-serious to being an apostate). And he and many in US leadership
(mostly Dems, but some GOPers) are seemingly obligated, by statements
they have made, to allow them to treat him thus in that they feel the US
shouldn't interfere with or attempt to impose US "values" upon the laws
of sovereign nations. The question would seem to hinge upon whether the
person or people in question follows the interpretation of the majority
or minority of Islamic scholars. The majority of Islamic scholars, um,
do not view apostates (or those who are held to deny the other books)
er, "favorably."

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


A similar (not identical, only similar) thing happened with Madeleine
Albright. She has Jewish ancestry, but denies any connection with the
Jewish faith; many in Israel were very unsure of how to respond to
that. AFAIK, no one in the Arab world cared at all, although they
certainly could have.

Likewise, the fringe of the muslim world has a lot to say about women
being in positions of authority...I don't see them having any problem
with meeting with Hilary, Madeleine or Condi.

Without knowing MUCH more about Islam, and you can read that to mean
BEING Muslimm or at least being an expert on the ins and outs of
Islam, I don't think any hypotheticals you or I came up with about how
the Arab world would treat Obama have enough basis is reality to be
worth worrying about. This whole Apostate thing has become such a
political football that I'm surprised that you are posting it here as
if it was someting that just dawned on you.

For one (of many) counterpoints, read:
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...f 900bedd1fc6


--riverman

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.

jeff

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

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". 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. ?

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. 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.

jeff

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

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

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:52:35 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

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?

Our support (rightfully so!) of Israel sure doesn't help our cause.
The fact that we are not a muslim nation also doesn't help. And, of
course, we are the rich guy on the block; everyone hates rich people.
d;o)


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?

Fished it the other day. Not too much happening. A few small
brookies (12 inchers) and some nice salmon. The currents at the
island are fishing very well, as is the wing dam pool.

I took a "worth-the-trip" brookie at the dam late yesterday in pouring
rain on a modified PT. The flow is at 400 (you can wade just about
anywhere) and at that flow I can get to water that is not normally
fished with a good presentation/drift. Cast over a rock and pulled
the fly up and over it until it dropped in front of the rock into a
nice little hole. BAM! A 4 - 5 pound female brookie took the size 18
nymph and I netted her about 4 minutes later. She was not a happy
camper. Some very big salmon are also being hooked. I lost several
yesterday fishing dries in the rain. Harry's "Killer Caddis" is now
my go-to fly.

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 Peter, especially up here. His knowledge of streamer fishing
is unmatched. I bought some wet flies and was swinging them in the
currents yesterday. Took some nice salmon with them. Of course I
thought of Peter while doing it.

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.

I just can't get into the salt thingy. I have tried and caught some
nice stipers, but my love is wading in a stream and catching trout. or
salmon. Pull? Try a Russian 32 inch rainbow. d;o)

Jenny has discovered water, including mud puddles. She loves it up
here almost as much as we do.

Dave

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

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.

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