Man, Barack Obama's really got it coming and going. First John McCain runs around the country talking about how much Hamas loves Obama, now Edward Luttwak says Islam requires Obama's murder for the crime of apostasy. I'm no expert on Islamic law, but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn't The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?
« When in Doubt, Blame the UN | Main | More on Luttwak »
Edward Luttwak, Theologian
12 May 2008 05:14 pm
Comments (83)
They gave that assignment out to the guy who fact checks Kristol's columns.
This seems like clear bullshit to me, but admittedly I don't know much about the Muslim world. Obama has never actually been a Muslim, so he didn't covert from Islam to Christianity, so he's not an apostate or whatever, so does anybody really give a shit that his father happened to be a lapsed Muslim? I mean besides the bunch of conservative wing-nuts who are making hay out of it--some evidence that actual Muslims care about this would be nice.
Ali Eteraz at HuffPost vehemently diagrees.
"Luttwack and the other fake experts promoting this new smear do not understand Islam. Religion is not hereditary as it is in Judaism. Islam is not a race. Just because a child has a Muslim father -- which, again, Obama didn't -- doesn't mean anything unless the child is being raised as a Muslim."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/obama-islam-smear-changes_b_101337.html
Luttwak, like SLC, is a moron.
Ali Eteraz at HuffPost vehemently diagrees.
"Luttwack and the other fake experts promoting this new smear do not understand Islam. Religion is not hereditary as it is in Judaism. Islam is not a race. Just because a child has a Muslim father -- which, again, Obama didn't -- doesn't mean anything unless the child is being raised as a Muslim."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-eteraz/obama-islam-smear-changes_b_101337.html
Where is the poster who always says
"This is EXCELLENT NEWS! FOR HILLARY!"
Double post, my bad.
Well, so much for the coveted Hamas endorsement.
but if this were any kind of real issue, shouldn't The New York Times be able to locate an actual Muslim who sees things this way?
Why would this make a difference? It's either correct or it isn't. That doesn't change depending on who the messenger is.
First John McCain runs around the country talking about how much Hamas loves Obama
Actually, it was the Hamas spokesman that said how much Hamas loves Obama.
The source of the so-called Hamas endorsement is a reporter for that rightwing rag Worldnet Daily.
Better trolls please.
The source of the so-called Hamas endorsement is a reporter for that rightwing rag Worldnet Daily.
With as much connection with reality, you could say that all good Catholics think Protestant heretics like Obama must be burned at the stake.
The source of the so-called Hamas endorsement is a reporter for that rightwing rag Worldnet Daily.
Al, the precise issue here is whether or not Muslims think that Obama is an apostate because his father was a lapsed Muslim. Edward Luttwak and a bunch of conservative wing-nuts claim they do, but saying it doesn't make it so. Actual empirical evidence (i.e. finding some Muslims who agree with Luttwak, preferably a representative sample) is needed. It also appears that the Ali Eteraz article linked above debunks Luttwak's claims from a theological standpoint in addition to an empirical standpoint.
I wish the would-be tough party (the GOP) would consider how fucking stupid and cowardly it looks to run around screaming about who a bunch of terrorist chuckleheads in Lebanon happen to favor for our next election. Don't they realize what a stupid precedent it sets to try and get foreign entities to influence our elections? Don't they realize how stupid it is to pretend that more to foreign policy than being "for" or "against" something? Bush and McCain are more "against" Hamas and other terrorist groups; but what have they done for you lately?
I agree with rea
So, he is now a secret Muslim who is a black radical Christian who may be in danger because he's not a Muslim?
From the right-wing rag Wikipedia on apostasy and The Religion of Peace:
Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ارتداد, irtidād or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.The four major Sunni and the one major Shia Madh'hab (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) agree that a sane adult male apostate must be executed.
The salient question would seem to be, does apostasy only apply to those who chose Islam as an adult and then abandon it, or does it apply also to those who were perhaps only nominally Muslims as children? Perhaps a fatwa from a learned Muslim cleric on whether he would consider Obama -- the son and stepson of Muslims -- to have ever been a Muslim, would be helpful.
Why would this make a difference?
Because religion is a sociological, not theoretical, phenomenon. If I were to suggest that Zoroastrianism requires it's followers to punch John McCain in the face at every opportunity, it would be wrong if no Zoroastrians felt a religious compunction to do so (no matter how brilliantly I deduced that conclusion from careful readings of Zoroastrian sacred texts and ancient traditions).
Al: you say:
"Why would this make a difference? It's either correct or it isn't. That doesn't change depending on who the messenger is."
Actually, it makes a lot of difference who the messenger is. It's a question about the interpretation of Islamic law. Therefore, the opinion of an actual Muslim judge or legal scholar would carry a lot more weight than the opinion of some guy on wingnut welfare who writes about political science and military history at a right-wing think-tank. Similarly, he -- or I -- can rant all we want to about American law, but in the absence of some sort of legal education on Luttwak's or my own resume, I'd still prefer to hear from an actual lawyer on any such question.
"Why would this make a difference? It's either correct or it isn't. That doesn't change depending on who the messenger is."
Yeah, Republicans are very principled about this: they would never, EVER slime the messenger in order to discredit the message.
By the way, I'm confused here. Shouldn't this be a point in Obama's FAVOR with the wingnuts? Is it too much to ask that they make up their minds whether they think their imaginary strawman Muslims like Obama or hate him? Just sayin'.
As I understand Etharaz's point (which was linked to somewhere around the net, but I can't find it now), Islam allows for abandonment. Since Obama's atheist (but technically of Muslim descent) father abandoned him, and he was raised by a mother and grandparents who were not Muslims, he is not considered a Muslim.
And as others have pointed out, for US Judeo-Christian conservatives to be sending out muslim fatwas on behalf of groups like Hamas is a new level of wackodom.
Point of this piece seems to be to get a hint of the "Obama is a secret Muslim" e-mail smear into "even the liberal New York Times." Mission accomplished.
Is it permitted under US law to suggest to a large population of the world that under their religious law they are obliged to kill a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? Is that aiding and abetting? What is a responsible(?) newspaper doing assisting in this enterprise?
Al, the precise issue here is whether or not Muslims think that Obama is an apostate because his father was a lapsed Muslim. Edward Luttwak and a bunch of conservative wing-nuts claim they do, but saying it doesn't make it so. Actual empirical evidence (i.e. finding some Muslims who agree with Luttwak, preferably a representative sample) is needed. It also appears that the Ali Eteraz article linked above debunks Luttwak's claims from a theological standpoint in addition to an empirical standpoint.
Actually, I think the issue is whether or not Muslims would think Obama is an apostate if they were informed that his father was a lapsed Muslim. Yes, I think some empirical evidence would be helpful. But I don't think that the religion of the author of the article constitutes such empirical evidence. What we would need is someone who is an expert on Muslim public opinion (which Luttwak certainly is not).
"Since Obama's atheist (but technically of Muslim descent) father abandoned him, and he was raised by a mother and grandparents who were not Muslims, he is not considered a Muslim."
You left out that Obama was also partly raised by his Muslim stepfather in Indonesia.
What Muslims think about this is relevant in context of the oft-repeated claim that Obama's exotic background would be a plus for him in dealing with Muslim countries.
Is Luttwak going to write about the appropriate fate for the guy in the race who has repeatedly called himself an Episcopalian, but now goes to a Baptist church and called himself a Baptist in South Carolina?
Should he be forced to attend bake sales?
You don't have to be an expert to know that anyone saying an entire world religious tradition requires anything is pretty much a fundamentalist and also wrong. Since he's claiming it requires murder, in this case he's about the intellectual and theological equivalent of an al-qaeda terrorist, actually. You and Andrew are giving this Luttwak guy way too much credit even by defering to experts to refute him. But I'm sure they'll do a good job.
This is a very important debate because if it weren't for this subtle point about Obama's youth, radical, terrorist and assassination-minded Islamic fundamentalists would be very hard pressed to find reasons to kill an American President.
You left out that Obama was also partly raised by his Muslim stepfather in Indonesia.
1) The step-father was non-practicing.
2) There is no major school of Islamic jurisprudence that I know of in which a stepfather necessarily passes on his religion. The natural mother takes precedence. See Eteraz's article.
Given that Obama has been quite clear he was never a Muslim, this is all a tissue of lies.
Ugh. I'm so sick of these "Middle East experts" who don't speak Arabic, have never lived in the region, and don't even understand basic distinctions among Middle Easterners: Hezbollah is a SHIITE organization in LEBANON. Hamas is a SUNNI organization in the PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES. They are very different organizations and have to be talked about and dealt with in very different ways.
In Islam, death is the penalty for apostasy (leaving the faith). The question would be whether Obama left the faith or not (he was a child, he may never have been a Muslim from the Islamic POV, and for all I know, the rules might be different for minors who move away).
The fact that the Times didn't find anyone to speak to that isn't a surprise; the Times often has trouble finding data they don't like.
Forget whether or not this is all a bunch of nonsense, which it is.
As an NRO writer pointed out, this should precisely be a reason that all those big talking, anti-Muslim conservatives should heartily back Obama if this were true: it would offer them a direct opportunity to challenge those Muslims attacking the American President.
In fact, the fact that Obama's journey of faith would enrage already-easily-enraged Muslim extremists is probably one of the better sales pitches for his presidency...
El cid wins the thread for making me laugh twice with equally snarky posts.
Barack the Apostate. I find something cool about that idea.
I thought Julian the Apostate was fairly nifty as Roman emperors went. Good choice of first name (Julian), generally good administrative policies (AFAIK), and pissed off the fundies!
Whoops! I take it back. Of course I was referring to his Holiness.
Ah, a resurgence of the Muslim smear.
Please to note that Al doesn't address the problem. Al deals with tangents.
So I went and read the Luttwak article. It is an odious hackjob. Luttwak is Jewish and rightwing, he is probably not the best judge of character of Obama.
Just to show how Dr. Luttwak likes to talk out of his ass, several years ago, he wrote an article on oil production where he claimed that Saudi Arabia could up production to some 22 million barrels/day. Not a single oil geologist anywhere in the world thinks that Saudi Arabia could produce even half that amount. Further proof that Luttwak doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground on many subjects on which he pontificates.
You know what guys? The Old Testament requires anyone who mixes wool and linen in their clothing to be put to death.
Obama therefore should be put to death in any supposedly Christian nation.
Right? Right?
Re: You left out that Obama was also partly raised by his Muslim stepfather in Indonesia.
So what? Conversion to Islam must be voluntary, and by someone who is of age to understand what they are doing. There is no equivalent of child baptism in Islam whereby even infants can be inducted into the faith. To become a Muslim a person of sound mind must sincerely make the profession of faith, "There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet".
Read the comments on the NYT piece, there are lots of angry Muslims calling the author out.
Apparently, there are many practicing Muslims in the Middle East and Asia who know that Obama is a Christian and still want him elected.
In my understanding of Sha'fi law (I assume Obama's father came from a Sha'fi community) you have to have professed the shahada to be considered Muslim and thus it is a prerequisite to apostasy.
In any case, despite what they want you to think, Islam always deregulates its decisions to the rulings of individual judges and jurisprudents, who have the choice of dozens of precedents at their disposal when time comes to make a ruling. In cases like this there can be no hard and fast; pragmatism rules. Witness the Baha'is in Iran.
"Conversion to Islam must be voluntary"
So if a Muslim has a child, that child isn't considered a Muslim until he voluntarily decides to join the faith? Why doesn't the NY Times or The Atlantic ask a prominent Muslim muckety-muck whether this is the case? This thread has lots of non-Muslims, including me, guessing, because we don't know. Is there a senior Muslim religious official stationed in Saudi Arabia's embassy in D.C.? Maybe Matt can ride his bike over there and ask him (assuming the Muslim religious official will chat with a "son of apes and pigs").
Fred: Why Saudi Arabia? They represent fringe opinion in the world of Islam. Go for a cleric in Egypt or Lebanon or Iran or basically anywhere besides S.A. if you want to get a more traditional opinion. Saudi Arabia's Islamism anti-traditional and radical in a modernist way distant from the both historical practice and the practice of most modern Muslims.
Fred at 6:25 pm says:
"You left out that Obama was also partly raised by his Muslim stepfather in Indonesia."
Well then, if Luttwak is right, it's hard to explain how Obama ever got out of Infonesia alive.
Hey that was a cool typo. I meant Indonesia, not Infonesia -- but it is possible that Luttwak is suffering from some strange form of infonesia.
So, he is now a secret Muslim who is a black radical Christian who may be in danger because he's not a Muslim?
It's a hell of way to go through life for someone who's supposed to be hostile to religion (and guns).
"Obama said he supports the Lebanese government, wants to 'strengthen the Lebanese army,' and 'insist[s] on disarming Hizbullah.'"
To quote SLC on Israel, Hizballah will allow itself to be disarmed when Nasrallah can see the back of his own ear.
This is more proof that Obama is clueless about foreign policy and is merely pandering to the right wing Zionist freaks like SLC.
Seriously, I thought it was hard to get an op-ed in the New York Times.
This is just embarrassing. I'm going to send in my op-ed about how Littwack drinks the blood of Christian babies which is why they sent him out of Romania and into Italy. Because, see the red sauce in Italy hides such crimes.
Because, apparently, the bar for slander is set just about that low by the NYT.
"Fred: Why Saudi Arabia?"
That country came to mind because it contains the holiest sites in Islam, and because, since it is an explicitly observant Muslim country, I figured its embassy would be likely to have some sort of high-ranking religious official on hand. I could be wrong, but I'd think it would be less likely for the embassies of multi-sectarian Lebanon or the secular autocracy Egypt to have high-ranking Muslim religious officials on hand. There is, of course, no Iranian embassy to the U.S. in D.C. I guess Matt could try Iraq's embassy if he wanted to look for a Shiite religious leader.
"Well then, if Luttwak is right, it's hard to explain how Obama ever got out of Infonesia alive."
Why? It's not as if Obama converted to Christianity on the way out of there. And in any case, Indonesia, in general, has more pragmatic Muslim tradition (i.e., there are radical groups there, including Al Qaeda affiliates, but from what I've read the mainstream Indonesian society has ignored some of the scarier aspects of Islam).
hass at 7:44
"The Old Testament requires anyone who mixes wool and linen in their clothing to be put to death.
Obama therefore should be put to death in any supposedly Christian nation.
Right? Right?"
Not right. There is such a prohibition, but it applies only to Jews and it is not punishable by death.
In the days of the temple, the priestly garments did have mixed wool and linen, and for a priest (Cohen) to wear such a garment IN A WRINKLED OR SOILED STATE was punishable by death.
Can someone excoriate the Times for effectively issuing death sentences on behalf of radical clerics it posits may be out there but too busy to do so? It seems as if they're disturbed that no actual extremist clerics have done so and Luttwak is leaping in to fill that breach.
Re: So if a Muslim has a child, that child isn't considered a Muslim until he voluntarily decides to join the faith?
As far as I know Muslims resemble, say, the Baptists in this, rather than Catholics. There are no infant "baptisms" into Islam. Now most likely they allow converts to be a fair bit younger than our age of majority (anyone know?) but I am pretty sure they do not consider young children to be Muslims until they are old enough to make the profession of faith with some level of adult understanding. (Islam actually resembles revisonist Protrestantism in several ways: the emphasis on the individual, the lack of a true clergy or heirarchy, the emphasis on Sola Scripture, the lack of sacraments...)
Re: That country came to mind because it contains the holiest sites in Islam, and because, since it is an explicitly observant Muslim country, I figured its embassy would be likely to have some sort of high-ranking religious official on hand.
Fred, Sunni Islam does not have clergymen. There are prayer leaders, scholars, etc, but nothing at all like even a Methodist minister, let alone a Catholic bishop. Perhaps one problem with the religion is that there is no office invested with religious authority, hence any crackpot, fanatic or fool can claim to speak for God and as long as he can rattle off some proof-text verses from the Qu'ran, and some tidbits from the life of Mohammed, chances are he'll draw a following of some sort. That's why folks like bin Laden get as far as they do: there's no one who can call them out of their extremist claims, the way a bishop can silence an aberrant priest (or even excommunicate him) and even a Baptist preacher that goes too far off the Baptist reserve will be repudiated by other Baptist authorities.
As a muslim, I find it hilarious to see that those who read a qur'an and then read some religious literature now feel they are fully qualified and veresed to say what i should or should not believe. Individuals like Fred, Al, and James Robertson seem to profess enough of an understanding of Islam to say with incredible certainty Islam's position when there are many scholars who won't dare take such steps because they fear saying something wrong out of personal bias and inclination rather than divine will. The supposed apostasy ruling of death is one derived largely out of one interpretation, nowhere explicity do the madhab have a codified death penalty for apostasy, rather this has been assumed and passed down as fact for some time. Oh and Fred, Wikipedia is hardly a fair or neutral place for articles on Islam, hence why many of its Islam articles are disputed on neutrality much of the time, and even the bogus claim that jihad is a "sixth pillar" of Islam belie its sensationalism. I sincerely hope that one day people will try and find as much nuance and interpretation in Islamic law as they find in their own secular law, for not doing so, amounts to a most pernicious form of orientalism.
Sid,
"Individuals like Fred, Al, and James Robertson seem to profess enough of an understanding of Islam to say with incredible certainty Islam's position"
Where did I state what Islam's position is with certainty? If I knew, I wouldn't have suggested that Matt seek out a senior Muslim religious official to ask him.
"Oh and Fred, Wikipedia is hardly a fair or neutral place for articles on Islam, hence why many of its Islam articles are disputed on neutrality much of the time"
The specific article I quoted and linked to, "Apostasy in Islam", wasn't so disputed. You are welcome to do so, if you think it is incorrect.
"I sincerely hope that one day people will try and find as much nuance and interpretation in Islamic law as they find in their own secular law, for not doing so, amounts to a most pernicious form of orientalism."
I sincerely hope that one day people will stop threatening cartoonists, novelists and others with death for violating their interpretation of Islamic law. Compared to that, orientalism is way down at the bottom of the list of my concerns.
If a wingnut writes something stupid about Islam and you go to defend them while admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, you might be a wingnut. At this point, Al, Fred et al are just arguing to argue and be assholes.
"I could be wrong, but I'd think it would be less likely for the embassies of multi-sectarian Lebanon or the secular autocracy Egypt to have high-ranking Muslim religious officials on hand."
Actually, the Egyptian government appoints imams prominent to positions of public religious leaders. They tend to be rather moderate when it comes to interpreting scripture, such as ruling that it is acceptable for someone to get a sex change as long as a doctor signs off on them being mentally the opposite sex.
Reality Man,
You are far quicker to call others assholes than you are to contribute anything useful to a conversation. If you what you wrote about Egypt is correct, then this may be an exception, where you were both rude and informative.
If the Egyptian embassy has a high-ranking religious official stationed there, I say let Matt bike over there and ask that man for his thoughts on this. Would that religious official consider someone of Obama's background to have been a Muslim as a child? Would he consider him an apostate for converting to Christianity? What, if any, punishment does he understand Islam prescribes for apostates? I'd be interested to hear the answers.
I'm happy that I live in a country where the law makes no provision for murdering someone because of his choice of faith (or, in this case, falsely alleged previous faith). And I certainly wouldn't vote the proxy of anyone who thought that was remotely appropriate.
So what the hell are we talking about?
Fred doesn't understand that he's basically asking all Muslims when they stopped beating their wives. Whether you think asking such questions makes one an asshole is a matter ripe for discussion, I'd say.
BTW, I believe Luttwak's argument was first run up the flagpole by none other than Daniel Pipes ... I believe Josh Marshall linked to it a couple of months ago. They're determined, aren't they?
Southpaw,
As I wrote above,
"What Muslims think about this is relevant in context of the oft-repeated claim that Obama's exotic background would be a plus for him in dealing with Muslim countries."
Fred, it's not anyone else's fault that you lack enough self-awareness to know why you're an asshole. Being a racist and a bigot pretty much covers that.
Reality Man,
Saying it doesn't make it so. If you have examples of my alleged racism and bigotry, I'll be happy to address them. My claim that you are rude needs no more examples than the ones you've provided in this thread.
No, Fred, you just said that Jews are considered by Muslims to be the sons of "apes and pigs" where Islam clearly holds no such provision. The Qur'an refers to the Jews who have committed transgression against God as akin to sons of apes and pigs but nowhere does exhort that appellate to the entire "race." Your ignorance belies a clear anti-muslim bias.
Many of Wikipedia's editors have simply given up editing many of Islam's articles simply b/c the force there is overwhelming. It doesnt take a large crowd to sway the general consensus of a page and a cadre of skewed editors have managed to do so with Islam and related articles, hence the creation of a entire criticism of Islam section and not one organized separate section for criticism of Christianity despite the much larger body of Western literature comprising anti-christian sentiments. In any case, you know as well as I that Wikipedia is not a be all and end all on any subject, let alone Islamic law.
And to the substance of your point... it is not Matt's job to substantiate poorly researched and uncited journalistic claims, and even if he did as you suggest, go to a supposed "islamic nation" embassy and elicit a religious opinion, such an opinion would be that of one scholar, hardly representative of the vast diversity that is the so-called "muslim world" and may or may not be self-indoctrinated by any of its constituents.
And, I too, am sincerely dismayed by the reaction to the Danish cartoons as well as the fatwa against Rushdie (now expired), however, this does not give you a license to be ignorant, nor a license to snarkily (and frankly, stupidly) belittle Matt and his bike.
Ride on.
"What Muslims think about this is relevant in context of the oft-repeated claim that Obama's exotic background would be a plus for him in dealing with Muslim countries."
Yeah, and this is where your typical right wing bullshit is seriously counterproductive.
For instance, Obama's 20 years of worship as a committed Christian should (in a normal world) help him in deeply religious places. But a vicious and sustained smear campaign from the right has those people falsely believing he's a Muslim.
Similarly, your average foreign Mohammedan ordinarily isn't going to inquire too deeply into the religious past of a Christian man who leads a secular government. But if you pursue the manifestly false insinuations that he's an apostate in widely distributed publications like the New York Times, some fraction of the world is going to come away believing it.
Similarly, I could posit the idea (in countless emails and blog posts) that because Obama lost rural areas of Pennsylvania he has decided to pursue an eliminationist campaign against the ethnic homeland of the Pennsylvania Dutch. I could publish an op-ed in the Times demanding the details of an Obama administration's nuclear policy toward the Netherlands, and then quibble endlessly with the campaign's denials. It would be a total farce, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't do serious damage to the candidate (and US-Holland relations).
This is why it's generally considered uncouth and assholeish to pursue investigations for which you have no predicate evidence. But I look forward to your investigation of whether McCain intends to bomb Islamic holy sites in Iran.
That country came to mind because it contains the holiest sites in Islam, and because, since it is an explicitly observant Muslim country, I figured its embassy would be likely to have some sort of high-ranking religious official on hand.
Which presumably means that the Italian mission (or even the mission of the Papal Nuncio, if you're being pissy) includes someone uniquely qualified to comment on the capacity of Episcobaptist John McCain to pass through the eye of a needle by filing separately.
Seriously, I thought it was hard to get an op-ed in the New York Times.
I let that one go long before Banal Ann Althouse got her op-ed.
Of course, you might argue that Luttwack got this op-ed published in order to put ideas in the head of the silly people who post bullshit at jihadist websites in a not-dissimilar way to O.F.F. here.
"No, Fred, you just said that Jews are considered by Muslims to be the sons of "apes and pigs" where Islam clearly holds no such provision."
I actually didn't make such a broad generalization (that all Muslims consider Jews to be the sons of apes and pigs), but I certainly did imply that a Saudi religious official might think that. Not an unreasonable assumption, considering that prominent Saudi clerics have called Jews the "sons of apes and pigs". For some examples, see, "Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations, and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs, And Other Animals"
"The Qur'an refers to the Jews who have committed transgression against God as akin to sons of apes and pigs but nowhere does exhort that appellate to the entire "race."
What sort of transgression?
"Your ignorance belies a clear anti-muslim bias."
The first refuge of someone attempting to distract from examples of bigotry by Muslim leaders (e.g., by prominent Saudi clerics) is often to accuse someone who highlights this bigotry of being an anti-Muslim bigot.
"Many of Wikipedia's editors have simply given up editing many of Islam's articles simply b/c the force there is overwhelming."
Listen, there are plenty of Wikipedia articles where the neutrality or the facts have been disputed, including articles relating to Islam. There are other articles that are disputed for being poorly sourced. The apostasy in Islam article isn't currently disputed at all. Have you even read it? The article acknowledges that some Muslim scholars don't agree that apostasy is punishable by death, but that these scholars are in the minority. It provides copious references. Read it, and if you disagree, edit it. Unlike some disputed articles, where the editing feature is locked, this one allows you to edit it.
"And to the substance of your point... it is not Matt's job to substantiate poorly researched and uncited journalistic claims..."
Matt lamented that the NY Times didn't seek out a Muslim opinion, which is why I suggested he do so himself. I've often made similar suggestions about other topics. While all most of us can do is speculate on most of these topics, Matt has potential access to first person experts. Why not use it?
"And, I too, am sincerely dismayed by the reaction to the Danish cartoons as well as the fatwa against Rushdie (now expired)"
Glad to hear it. السلام عليك
luttwak is talking out of his ass.
the point is not what orthodox islamic theology might or might not say about apostasy (who cares? this muslim certainly couldn't give a fuck) or whether, according to such understanding(s) (there can be more than one interpretation) obama is indeed an apostate, taking into account abandonment, indonesian stepfather blah blah blah ... i mean, come on!
the point is what ordinary, everyday muslims believe, the suggestion in luttwak's piece being that they would: (a) be "horrified" to learn the truth of obama's "conversion" and (b) would thus be lining up to behead him, since, you know, that's what muslims do to apostates.
the vast majority of ordinary, everyday muslims would not consider obama an apostate, regardless of what orthodox theology says on the subject, wouldn't give two shits about his so-called "conversion," and -- and it is kind of insane that i have to even make this point -- would not consider it their religious duty to behead him.
the times should be ashamed of itself for printing such rubbish.
and the point, fred, is why is the times printing such incorrect and inflammatory horse-shit from someone who doesn't know jackshit either about islam or muslims. don't they have fact-checkers?
Does this mean we're going to have to pay more for Secret Service protection if Obama is elected?
Really, why would anyone give a shit if some nutbag Islamoids think Obama's an apostate, much less if a partisan right-wing Jew thinks they might?
I am far from being any kind of expert on the Quran or the Hebrew or Christian holy books for that matter. Most serious religious historians have long since concluded that the Quran, like the latter two books, is full of contradictions as different portions of it were written by different people at different times. However, it is my understanding that:
1. Muslims consider both the Hebrew and Christian holy books to be a part of their religious tradition;
2. Muslims consider that Joshua of Nazareth is one of the prophets;
3. Muslims consider that the believers in the other two Abrahamic religions are consider to be people of the Book and are to be respected as such.
Fred -- the only this more ludicrous than your views on Muzlims is your beleif that Matt would ever, ever, do actual reporting. Do you even read this blog??
Again, Fred, enough with the importance that so-called religious officials play in the everyday matters and interpretations of the vast majority of muslims. It is mostly irrelevant what one saudi religious official might decree, to the delight of MEMRI no doubt, to the thought processes and logic o f everyday muslims.
I did NOT call you a bigot, I called you out as exhibiting some anti-muslim bias, which others have pointed out before me in this very post and was evidenced long before this as well. Again, as I have stated before, someone else's ignorance does not give you a license to respond in kind, especially when the vast majority of muslims get along just fine with jews without even belittling them (imagine that!).
I have read the apostasy article and while I do think there are problems and it can be written better, my opinion is irrelevant. I wouldnt go to Wikipedia for an exposition on Catholic or Judaic jurisprudence, and especially less so for Islamic jurisprudence given that there is very little in English, and the little there is is written in such horrendous English, it is barely readable.
And again, even if Matt DID seek out a muslim opinion it would not matter, it would not give much more credence to the article, for the reasons I outlined earlier.
And while I can't read his last bit in arabic b/c its not resolving well on my screen: it looks like Assalam Alaikum, although you forgot the meem.
A child can no more be born a Muslim than Fred can be born a liberal. Why would we give any credence to what a few radical memebers of Islam think? I know Fred thinks its relevant, but the postitives of having a President Obama deal with the Middle East far outweigh the negatives. Let's be serious here, please.
Sorry people, but Luttwak is absolutely right. If Obama gets elected he and all of you will find this out the hard way when the Islamists start blaming their attacks on the fact that the US is led by an apostate. Debate it all you like, but that is the simple truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
Seriously, I thought it was hard to get an op-ed in the New York Times.
It was probably the neocon Sam Tanenhaus editor who allowed it. He was probably behind recruiting William Kristol as well. It's a rightwing Zionist conspiracy at the New York Times.
leftbutnotblind:
Sorry people, but Luttwak is absolutely right. If Obama gets elected he and all of you will find this out the hard way when the Islamists start blaming their attacks on the fact that the US is led by an apostate. Debate it all you like, but that is the simple truth.
If you were to post with your real name, we could laugh at you when it turns out to not be true.
Besides, they already attacked America and it doesn't matter that McCain is an all-American from America.
I missed the entry until today. Saw the article in the subway on the way home, and thought how is this not abig deal today? Can always count on Matt to locate&debunk the BS!
George W Bush is an Islamic apostate, and before him Bill Clinton? Who knew?
Comments closed May 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Senator Obamas' inexperience and naiveté will play into the takeover of Lebanon by Iran and Syria through their Hizbollah terrorist puppets.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209627060015&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"At present, Hizbullah and its sponsors seek not the full conquest of Lebanon but to control the government by violence and intimidation. Unable to gain full victory themselves, they hope to win by the other side's surrender. They want veto power over the government to ensure it does nothing they dislike: no strong relations with the West, no ability to stop war against Israel, no disarming Hizbullah militias or challenging its control over much of the country, and certainly no investigation of Syrian involvement in internal terrorism there.
NOW THEY have a new, albeit unwitting, ally: Senator Barack Obama, who does not understand the damage he does. His May 10 statement on Lebanon tried to sound tough, talking of "Hizbullah's power grab in Beirut... This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hizbullah must press them to stand down immediately." Obama said he supports the Lebanese government, wants to "strengthen the Lebanese army," and "insist[s] on disarming Hizbullah."
How? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."
According to the Obama world view, it's a development problem. But he doesn't understand that bombs trump business. Prime Minister Rafik Hariri followed that economic strategy; the Syrians blew him up. The only way to gain social peace is to appease Hizbullah, Syria and Iran, whose disruption blocks prosperity. "
"When Obama says he'll make Syria and Iran partners in setting Iraq's future, he is signaling every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. His stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them, with Iran and Syria concluding they merely need stand defiant and wait a few months until existing pressure vanishes. This is how the US position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.
This does not mean that Obama is the candidate favored by Arabs in general; he is favored only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem. It is one for all non-extremists in the region.
If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying. "
We elect Senator Obama the inexperienced and naive at our own peril.
Posted by SLC | May 12, 2008 5:31 PM