A weird dilemma for Obama...

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

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

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Non sequitur. What "Arabs" might think of those who "deny any
connection with the Jewish faith" or women in positions of authority is
unrelated to what Islamic law and the Quran state about apostates. Obama
was born a Muslim and he actively and knowingly rejected Islam as an
adult - the debate over what Islamic law says about apostates is viable;
to debate his apostasy is pointless.

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.

His apostasy didn't "just dawn on me," but his recent leaving of his
church put another spin on it. To me, this could be (and should be)
trouble for him - why is he leaving it now? Oh, I know it's supposedly
all final-strawish because some guilty white liberal Catholic priest
went off the my brotha deep end, but his narrow wanna-be-black ass was
right there warming the oak through the same kind of schtick when it
made him look good locally.

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

Not much of a counterpoint. They are absolutely correct about a few
Islamic scholars stating that it is their interpretation that apostasy
is a crime, but it is to be punished in the afterlife, by God, etc. So
what? There are US scholars who would state that it is their thinking
that many US drug laws are wrong, un-Constitutional, etc. Attempts at
using such with a court to get a possession with intent rap tossed ain't
gonna build a legal career.

IAC, I had not seen, read, or even heard of the referenced NYT piece
until I read your cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...12luttwak.html

but it seems more accurate than the one you cited. Further, what the
"Arab media" might or might not say about Obama is not conclusive, or
even material as to his apostasy, and citing that they haven't made an
issue of his apostasy has no bearing on the fact that under much of
Islamic law and for most "authorized interpreters," he is an apostate.
The "Arab media" doesn't make that call, clerics interpreting the Quran
do. And note the quote from your story,

"The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar...Tantantawi sic said, 'A Muslim who
renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone _as long as
he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam._'" Emp. add. (and BTW, it's
Tantawi).

I'll not attempt to define what "pose a threat" or "belittle" might mean
to whom, but I will say that the threshold for doing so doesn't seem to
be particularly high for some. And the rest of his position is "If
Muslims are forced to take action against the apostate, it should not be
because he or she had given up the faith but because he or she had
turned out to be an enemy or a threat to Islam." And for the record,
Tantawi does seem to tolerance and peaceful co-existence, with the
serious caveat that threats to Islam shall not be tolerated.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

FWIW, it appears he supports death for Rushdie as an apostate blasphemer
and enemy of Islam. But since he is a single scholar in Egypt, I'm not
sure what he has to do with Iran, Iraq, Syria, a Palestinian state, etc.

TC,
R
--riverman

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 05:50:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:31:03 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Non sequitur. What "Arabs" might think of those who "deny any
connection with the Jewish faith" or women in positions of authority is
unrelated to what Islamic law and the Quran state about apostates. Obama
was born a Muslim and he actively and knowingly rejected Islam as an
adult - the debate over what Islamic law says about apostates is viable;
to debate his apostasy is pointless.

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.

His apostasy didn't "just dawn on me," but his recent leaving of his
church put another spin on it. To me, this could be (and should be)
trouble for him - why is he leaving it now? Oh, I know it's supposedly
all final-strawish because some guilty white liberal Catholic priest
went off the my brotha deep end, but his narrow wanna-be-black ass was
right there warming the oak through the same kind of schtick when it
made him look good locally.

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

Not much of a counterpoint. They are absolutely correct about a few
Islamic scholars stating that it is their interpretation that apostasy
is a crime, but it is to be punished in the afterlife, by God, etc. So
what? There are US scholars who would state that it is their thinking
that many US drug laws are wrong, un-Constitutional, etc. Attempts at
using such with a court to get a possession with intent rap tossed ain't
gonna build a legal career.

IAC, I had not seen, read, or even heard of the referenced NYT piece
until I read your cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...12luttwak.html

but it seems more accurate than the one you cited. Further, what the
"Arab media" might or might not say about Obama is not conclusive, or
even material as to his apostasy, and citing that they haven't made an
issue of his apostasy has no bearing on the fact that under much of
Islamic law and for most "authorized interpreters," he is an apostate.
The "Arab media" doesn't make that call, clerics interpreting the Quran
do. And note the quote from your story,

"The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar...Tantantawi sic said, 'A Muslim who
renounced his faith or turned apostate should be left alone _as long as
he does not pose a threat or belittle Islam._'" Emp. add. (and BTW, it's
Tantawi).

I'll not attempt to define what "pose a threat" or "belittle" might mean
to whom, but I will say that the threshold for doing so doesn't seem to
be particularly high for some. And the rest of his position is "If
Muslims are forced to take action against the apostate, it should not be
because he or she had given up the faith but because he or she had
turned out to be an enemy or a threat to Islam." And for the record,
Tantawi does seem to tolerance and peaceful co-existence, with the
serious caveat that threats to Islam shall not be tolerated.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

FWIW, it appears he supports death for Rushdie as an apostate blasphemer
and enemy of Islam. But since he is a single scholar in Egypt, I'm not
sure what he has to do with Iran, Iraq, Syria, a Palestinian state, etc.

TC,
R
--riverman

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:



Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

On Jun 2, 9:19*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. *Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. *I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. *OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

Not a right-wing conspiracy, but certainly typical religio-centric
paranoia.

Wikipedia (religious textual icon that it is) pretty strongly implies
that you have to be post-puberty and renounce Islam to be considered
an Apostate. AFAIK, Obama left the muslim faith about the time that
most of us were about the age that we thought Easter was about
chocolate. I think that among the vast vast majority of muslim states,
modern diplomacy will supplant any religious dictates (such as it has
with meeting with unveiled women in authority, etc). Among the Islam
lunatic fringe, they don't need any reason to attempt something
extreme, and we have entire secret organizations whose sole purpose is
to prevent such events.

I don't think the US voters should let our elections be affected by
some fear that our President might be a Target. If we do, then we lose
control of our own elections, and they win. There are always similar
irrational concerns about candidates: people who did not know
Catholicism feared that JFK would be more allegiant to the Pope than
the Constitution, and I remember Yankees fearing that Jimmy Carter
would be more allegiant to the Stars and Bars than the Union.

--riverman

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

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Jun 2, 9:19*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:24:31 -0500, George Cleveland

wrote:

Richard, the whole apostasy thing is just another dumb GOP whispering
campaign.

No, it isn't. *Did you read my last cite:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/857/eg9.htm

http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...Page=AR&Id=272

Again, I don't claim or think that _all_ Muslims will or should care one
way or the other about Obama and apostasy, but for anyone, including
scholars, to say it won't matter to _any_ is, simply put, bull****. *I
would agree that a) Muslims of US citizenship should not let it
influence their vote, and b) that in the US, it goes without question
that his religious status is legally meaningless. *OTOH, I think that
for Dems to try and play this off as some "vast right-wing conspiracy"
is a mistake.

TC,
R

Not a right-wing conspiracy, but certainly typical religio-centric
paranoia.

I'm sure what you mean to say, but if you think the issue of apostasy in
Islam is some new Obama-inspired thing, you're the one being, er,
"-centric."

Wikipedia (religious textual icon that it is) pretty strongly implies
that you have to be post-puberty and renounce Islam to be considered
an Apostate. AFAIK, Obama left the muslim faith about the time that
most of us were about the age that we thought Easter was about
chocolate.

Er, no, and no. Under the majority of Islamic scholars' interpretation,
he is an apostate - he was born Muslim. The only thing minority allows,
generally, is that he is not subject to punishment for an apostasy until
majority - there is no minority period of "free apostasies" prior to
majority. IAC, Obama apostatized as an adult, so whatever he may have
done as "a child" is no longer the controlling factor. And as to
beliefs about Easter (perhaps a Freudian choice, certainly an ironic
one...), given some of his supposed self-stated beliefs and ideas, he
obviously still believes in fairy tales...

I think that among the vast vast majority of muslim states,
modern diplomacy will supplant any religious dictates (such as it has
with meeting with unveiled women in authority, etc).

Why do you think that?

Among the Islam lunatic fringe,

Um, do you consider the vast majority of Muslims the "Islam lunatic
fringe?"

they don't need any reason to attempt something
extreme, and we have entire secret organizations whose sole purpose is
to prevent such events.

I don't think the US voters should let our elections be affected by
some fear that our President might be a Target. If we do, then we lose
control of our own elections, and they win. There are always similar
irrational concerns about candidates:

Like John McCain's age...? Seriously, I agree with the above,
generally. I don't suggest that anyone in the US should consider his
apostasy in voting (but I don't suggest that they don't, either), but I
find it another of life's little ironies, given the aforementioned
positions on other nations and US involvement...much like the whole
delegates-vs-"popular vote" mess Hillary finds herself in, with none
other than Terry McAuliffe as her head poot boy...

people who did not know Catholicism feared that JFK would be more
allegiant to the Pope than the Constitution,

Well, sure - anyone who had any insight into the Kennedys knew he'd
ignore 'em if possible and **** 'em both over if not for family and
"friends"...

and I remember Yankees
fearing that Jimmy Carter would be more allegiant to the Stars and Bars
than the Union.

Uh...

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

TC,
R

--riverman

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