Obama the Apostate
I wrote about this subject ... 6 months ago, but suddenly it is now the topic du jour among New York Clinton Times and readers: On May 12, the NYCT published an Op-Ed piece by a fellow named Luttwak -- "Edward N. Luttwak, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.” This Op-Ed piece opined that Obama's candidacy faces a problem in Sharia Law -- that Obama is an apostate, that he left the one true faith to become a Christian. The generally accepted punishment for apostasy is ... death. Beheading by a cleric is the primary desirable method, followed by stoning or hanging.
One Clark Hoyt -- the Public Editor of the NYCT -- took issue with this interpretation of facts as Luttwak saw them and consulted "five Islamic scholars at five American Universities" for their take on the matter. According to Hoyt, their (impliedly more reputable) take on the matter was that it was a non-issue and that Luttwak had misinterpreted the religion of peace. Their rebuttals included:
1. "Sherman A. Jackson, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Michigan, cited an ancient Islamic jurist, Ibn al-Qasim, who said, “If you divorce a Christian woman and ignore your child from her to the point that the child grows up to be a Christian, the child is to be left,” meaning left to make his own choice. Jackson said that there was not total agreement among Islamic jurists on the point, but Luttwak’s assertion to the contrary was wrong." (NYCT -- 6.1.08) Note that this scholar (and hence Hoyt) cites "an ancient Islamic jurist" but later in his piece Hoyt notes that modern thought might be the better way of interpretation (see #4).
2. "Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, said the majority opinion among Islamic jurists is that the law of apostasy can apply only to individuals who knowingly decide to be Muslims and later renege. One school of thought, he said, is that an individual must be at least a teenager to make the choice. Obama’s campaign told The Los Angeles Times last year that he “has never been a practicing Muslim.” As a young adult, he chose to be baptized as a Christian." (Id.) El Fadl does not cite any body of Islamic jurists as his "majority" -- Sunni or Shia, Wahabbi or other. Also, a majority opinion can be slim or overwhelming. It may reflect American Islamic thought or Pakistani. In short, he says nothing.
3. "Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a professor of law at Emory University, said that Sharia, or Islamic law, including the law of apostasy, does not apply to an American or anyone outside the Muslim world. Of the more than 40 countries where Muslims are the majority, he said, Sharia is the official legal system only in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and even there apostasy is unevenly prosecuted, and apostates often wind up in prison, not executed." (Id.) This is blatant bullshit. In the non-Nato parts of Afghanistan, do you suppose that a constitution rules? Or in tribal Pakistan? Or Anbar Province in Indonesia? Chechnya? Oman? Yemen? And nowhere "is it written" that Americans are exempt. Heck, in the UK, Sharia almost rules already -- witness the refusal of Midlands Police to rebuke or reign in the Islamo-fascists forbidding Christians from talking with Muslims youths or handing out pamphlets in their neighborhoods. It is also unclear in this statement as to what constitutes apostasy -- and what degree of apostasy results in prison and for what will you lose your head. In practice, the "Full Monty" crime is going Christian, while prison is reserved for those who may utter thoughts implying apostasy. Hoyt, get it right.
4. "Several of the scholars agreed that, in classical Sharia, apostasy is a capital crime, but they said that Islamic thinking is evolving. Mahmoud Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif., said, “Whether (apostasy) is punishable by death or not, there are different opinions...”. (Id.) Another inconsistency as noted in #1, above. They admit that in classical thinking apostasy is a capital crime -- but people are put to death every year in the Middle East because of it. Are they "classically executed?" If Wahabbi Islam becomes the controlling theology (Al Qaeda and the Taliban), plus the Shia lunatics, "classical" apostasy will be the rule throughout Islam. And there are millions of Muslims who live by this rule already, by some measures, maybe 100 million or more. The differing opinions are far more likely to be found in the West, where so far the Islamo-fascists are afraid to overplay their "hand." Just wait until they do not have to be so circumspect.
5. "Last year, Egypt’s highest Islamic cleric, Sheik Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti, spoke out against killing apostates. He said punishment for those abandoning the religion would come in the afterlife. Egpyt has a problem: it is a modern secular state. It is tightly controlled by the military-politico combine designed to keep the Mubarak dynasty in control. But the Islamic Brotherhood "offed" Sadat for treating with the enemy ... and so you can bet that the Islamic Brotherhood would "off" you for apostasy, too. If the Mufti choses to remain at liberty in Egypt, he MUST come down on the side of liberal Islamic thought. Another ill-conceived rebuttal.
And lost in all this tit-for-tat is the reality that the persons who would be exempt under Sharia law for murder (of an apostate President) are the already radicalized Islamo-fascists, the Wahabbi-inspired goons who are "insurgents" in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the teachers and students in Pakistani madrassas, and almost any Iranian cleric/student/Islamic Guard member. As stated above, there are perhaps 100 million radicalized Muslims. Think about it. If only 10% of that lot regards Obama as apostate, that's 10 million potential assassins.
But is Obama (reasonably) apostate? Under Hoyt's own rebuttal he acknowledges that under that Obama decided to be baptized as a "young adult," not the "child"being raised as a Christian of "classical" thought. Hoyt also explains that Obama's campaign stated that "he has never been a practicing Muslim." Does that mean he was a Muslim, but not practicing? Not exactly a tight argument.
Nothing that I have read is credible is asserting that Obama attended a madrassa, and was anything but a mixed-race kid who didn't know his real father. But that does not mean that people who would saw off someone's head with a pocket knife will see it that way. All indications would be that they won't. Any failure to locate Arabic-language blogs or newsprint featuring this possbility does not even remotely mean that they won't try to kill him: since when did Al Qaeda publicize its attack plans? Saudi Arabia, similarly, tries to keep a tight lid on its loonies, especially when one considers that a target might be the head of state of their largest oil client.
Mr. Hoyt, you have not done justice to Luttwak's thesis and claiming that Luttwak is dangerously out-of-touch or factually off-base only reveals the extent that you refuse to accept that there may be 100 million potential assassins out there who would love to kill any American, let alone a (perceived) apostate President.
One Clark Hoyt -- the Public Editor of the NYCT -- took issue with this interpretation of facts as Luttwak saw them and consulted "five Islamic scholars at five American Universities" for their take on the matter. According to Hoyt, their (impliedly more reputable) take on the matter was that it was a non-issue and that Luttwak had misinterpreted the religion of peace. Their rebuttals included:
1. "Sherman A. Jackson, a professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Michigan, cited an ancient Islamic jurist, Ibn al-Qasim, who said, “If you divorce a Christian woman and ignore your child from her to the point that the child grows up to be a Christian, the child is to be left,” meaning left to make his own choice. Jackson said that there was not total agreement among Islamic jurists on the point, but Luttwak’s assertion to the contrary was wrong." (NYCT -- 6.1.08) Note that this scholar (and hence Hoyt) cites "an ancient Islamic jurist" but later in his piece Hoyt notes that modern thought might be the better way of interpretation (see #4).
2. "Khaled Abou El Fadl, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, said the majority opinion among Islamic jurists is that the law of apostasy can apply only to individuals who knowingly decide to be Muslims and later renege. One school of thought, he said, is that an individual must be at least a teenager to make the choice. Obama’s campaign told The Los Angeles Times last year that he “has never been a practicing Muslim.” As a young adult, he chose to be baptized as a Christian." (Id.) El Fadl does not cite any body of Islamic jurists as his "majority" -- Sunni or Shia, Wahabbi or other. Also, a majority opinion can be slim or overwhelming. It may reflect American Islamic thought or Pakistani. In short, he says nothing.
3. "Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, a professor of law at Emory University, said that Sharia, or Islamic law, including the law of apostasy, does not apply to an American or anyone outside the Muslim world. Of the more than 40 countries where Muslims are the majority, he said, Sharia is the official legal system only in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and even there apostasy is unevenly prosecuted, and apostates often wind up in prison, not executed." (Id.) This is blatant bullshit. In the non-Nato parts of Afghanistan, do you suppose that a constitution rules? Or in tribal Pakistan? Or Anbar Province in Indonesia? Chechnya? Oman? Yemen? And nowhere "is it written" that Americans are exempt. Heck, in the UK, Sharia almost rules already -- witness the refusal of Midlands Police to rebuke or reign in the Islamo-fascists forbidding Christians from talking with Muslims youths or handing out pamphlets in their neighborhoods. It is also unclear in this statement as to what constitutes apostasy -- and what degree of apostasy results in prison and for what will you lose your head. In practice, the "Full Monty" crime is going Christian, while prison is reserved for those who may utter thoughts implying apostasy. Hoyt, get it right.
4. "Several of the scholars agreed that, in classical Sharia, apostasy is a capital crime, but they said that Islamic thinking is evolving. Mahmoud Ayoub, a professor of Islamic studies and comparative religion at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif., said, “Whether (apostasy) is punishable by death or not, there are different opinions...”. (Id.) Another inconsistency as noted in #1, above. They admit that in classical thinking apostasy is a capital crime -- but people are put to death every year in the Middle East because of it. Are they "classically executed?" If Wahabbi Islam becomes the controlling theology (Al Qaeda and the Taliban), plus the Shia lunatics, "classical" apostasy will be the rule throughout Islam. And there are millions of Muslims who live by this rule already, by some measures, maybe 100 million or more. The differing opinions are far more likely to be found in the West, where so far the Islamo-fascists are afraid to overplay their "hand." Just wait until they do not have to be so circumspect.
5. "Last year, Egypt’s highest Islamic cleric, Sheik Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti, spoke out against killing apostates. He said punishment for those abandoning the religion would come in the afterlife. Egpyt has a problem: it is a modern secular state. It is tightly controlled by the military-politico combine designed to keep the Mubarak dynasty in control. But the Islamic Brotherhood "offed" Sadat for treating with the enemy ... and so you can bet that the Islamic Brotherhood would "off" you for apostasy, too. If the Mufti choses to remain at liberty in Egypt, he MUST come down on the side of liberal Islamic thought. Another ill-conceived rebuttal.
And lost in all this tit-for-tat is the reality that the persons who would be exempt under Sharia law for murder (of an apostate President) are the already radicalized Islamo-fascists, the Wahabbi-inspired goons who are "insurgents" in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the teachers and students in Pakistani madrassas, and almost any Iranian cleric/student/Islamic Guard member. As stated above, there are perhaps 100 million radicalized Muslims. Think about it. If only 10% of that lot regards Obama as apostate, that's 10 million potential assassins.
But is Obama (reasonably) apostate? Under Hoyt's own rebuttal he acknowledges that under that Obama decided to be baptized as a "young adult," not the "child"being raised as a Christian of "classical" thought. Hoyt also explains that Obama's campaign stated that "he has never been a practicing Muslim." Does that mean he was a Muslim, but not practicing? Not exactly a tight argument.
Nothing that I have read is credible is asserting that Obama attended a madrassa, and was anything but a mixed-race kid who didn't know his real father. But that does not mean that people who would saw off someone's head with a pocket knife will see it that way. All indications would be that they won't. Any failure to locate Arabic-language blogs or newsprint featuring this possbility does not even remotely mean that they won't try to kill him: since when did Al Qaeda publicize its attack plans? Saudi Arabia, similarly, tries to keep a tight lid on its loonies, especially when one considers that a target might be the head of state of their largest oil client.
Mr. Hoyt, you have not done justice to Luttwak's thesis and claiming that Luttwak is dangerously out-of-touch or factually off-base only reveals the extent that you refuse to accept that there may be 100 million potential assassins out there who would love to kill any American, let alone a (perceived) apostate President.
posted by Zaphod at Monday, June 02, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home