| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Olde Tyme Religion | |
| President Apostate? | |
| 2008-05-12 | |
| Edward Luttwak, New York Times BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership — a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. . . . One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world. . . . As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant. Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him. His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive). With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. . . . It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities. One thing to point out: the governments in most "Muslim" countries are simple thugocracies. Iran and Saudi are religious dictatorships; in Syria and Egypt and most other places, they're simple dictatorships. The only faith motivating the government of Syria, for example, is an unwavering belief that Baby Assad is and should be the absolute ruler of Syria. Islam got nothin' to do with it. Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing. At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. As a matter of pure self-interest, nobody would want to have a US president assasinated on their soil and have it look like an inside job--so they'll maintain airtight security and just ignore the theological implications. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. Or, just as likely, most wouldn't care much one way or the other, but they would notice the contradiction between the strict "death to all apostates!" pronouncement and the actual behavior of the local thugocracy. What further effects that might have would be unknown. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad. That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.
| |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 There are lots of imponderables about Barry The Builder (Can we fix it?" "Yes we can" Obama (Including the ears) I will preface by using the acronym AFAIK (as far as I know) There is no disputing that Barack Hussein Obama was born a Muslim. He is the offspring of a polygamist Muslim father from Kenya and an atheistic communist mother. His Arabic birth name of “Baraka” came directly from the Koran, meaning “blessing.” His father, who married four wives without divorcing, later claimed to be atheist but his grandfather remained a devout Muslim in Kenya. Now is having four wives the signature of an atheist? As his father had not divorced his mother, there would not have been a "marriage" to her new " husband" who may or may not have been Obama's "stepfather". The "family" moved to Jakarta where he spent the formative years of 6-10 in the devout Islamic nation. He attended a Muslim school, attended mosque, and was in fact reared as a Muslim. There is no doubt that after returning to Hawaii Obama became a non practicing Muslim. Under the stewardship of Wright became a Christian. Why did he abandon Islam and become a Muslim? I've got an acquaintance a Muslim, who regularly attends a local ethnic Christian church. When I asked him why he as a Muslim went there, he said it was very good for making "business contacts" All his Muslim friends knew what he was doing and it didn't faze any of them. |
| Posted by: tipper 2008-05-12 23:38 |
| #10 Amazing: the NYT is part of the Rethuglican attack machine! Nope, the NYT is defending Obama against McCain's (truthful) statement that Obama was endorsed by Hamas. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-05-12 22:16 |
| #9 It was a multicultural madrassa where there was no religion as in most of secular Indonesia. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-05-12 18:04 |
| #8 And need I remind everyone that Obama did attend an Indonesian Madrassa as a yoot? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-12 17:15 |
| #7 LH There are a bunch of traditions on this. One tradition, not accepted by every muslim, is that all babies, everywhere are born muslim and only the misguided views of infidel parents make them otherwise. I think what happens most often is that, first, as you say, the father has educational custody of the children. Thus, he has the authority to get them to read the Quran. If they read the Quran they are going to do the shahada. All it takes is one honest pronunciation of the shahada and they are muslim. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-05-12 17:07 |
| #6 "However, I'm pretty sure that most of Sunni and Shia law is that the child takes the religion of the father rather than the wife " Is that actually a matter of islam passing by blood a la membership in the Jewish people (note, Judaism does NOT pass by blood - but thats irrelevant, we are a nation, which one is bound to, regardless of religion - you can apostacize from truth, but you leaving the jewish people isnt wrong, its impossible - which is why Jews for Jesus IF actually born Jews, ARE Jews) or is it just that the father as legal head of the family has the right and obligation to take on the shadida on behalf of the child, a la infant baptism? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-05-12 15:45 |
| #5 Mike, Catholicism also allows for conversion without baptism - its "conversion of desire", in which circumstance prevent the physical baptism rite from happening. But the recommendation for adults in non-extenuating circumstances is the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) - go to the development and catechetical education for usually 9 months prior broken into 3 stages - inquirer -- no committment, learn what Catholicism is, including the history, unvarnished [yes crusades, inquisition, etc], of the Church seeker -- no binding committment, seek a to learn the basic theology and faith of Catholics and the Church, and establish a connection to God and the Church. And finally "catechumin" -- where you commit to become an official learner, with an expected further committment to come into full communion with the Church. This is where you learn the obligations and duties of a Catholic, where you make the commitment to the Church and sign the Book of the Elect. The final phase is to get the Sacrements of Initiaiton: baptism, confirmation and first communion all in one fell swoop at the Easter Vigil Mass. Although most people complete this in the usual 9 months, some take a few years in the first, or the middle, or even the last stage, prior to making the committment and completing the Sacraments. As you can see, becoming a Catholic is not exactly a quick process in normal circumstances. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-12 14:53 |
| #4 TW: Depending on the denomination, adult baptisim isn't always the mark of a convert. In the Catholic church, baptism is one of the rites of initiation, which is why we baptize babies. Some Protestants do this, too--Lutherans and AME, that I know of. (Interesting fun fact: the Catholic church will recognize a baptism performed in another denomination as valid.) In other Protestant denominations, "conversion" technically occurs when you accept Christ, and baptism is an optional thing you do at some later time as an affirmation of your existing commitment. My Baptist wife didn't get baptized until she was over 40. (Yes, baptism is optional for Baptists. Go figure.) I'm not sure what UCC's policy is on this point, but Obama could very well have been a Christian long before he was baptized. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-05-12 14:31 |
| #3 I'm no fan of Luttwak who I consider an arrogent blowhard. However, I'm pretty sure that most of Sunni and Shia law is that the child takes the religion of the father rather than the wife (I think the law is a bit weakerr when the man fathers a child with a concubine). The law has to deal with verses in the Qrn which forbid friendships outside the faith (so if your kid isn't your faith, that would be a problem) and those that forbid leaving Islam plus the traditions of Islamic leaders taking non muslim woman as prizes of conquest. I think this whole tradition is one reason why Muslim women who date Christians are sometimes murdered - their offspring would not be Muslim). On the other hand, I don't know of single case where any of the four star Imans has pushed this meme regarding Obama. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-05-12 14:08 |
| #2 Just as the child of a Jewish mother is a Jew unless it converts to another religion, liberalhawk. Obama, Sr. was born a Muslim; if he practiced any other religion that would make him an apostate Muslim, if he renounced his religion that would make him an apostate Muslim. Barack Hussein Obama was baptized a Christian by the now retired Reverend Wright as an adult, so clearly he thought he was converting, although from what isn't clear. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-05-12 13:39 |
| #1 "As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. " dont you have to say the shahida "Allah is god, and Mo is his prophet" to be a muslim - its not like being a jew, you dont get it by blood alone. It may be that just as in (non-baptist) christianity the parents can christen an infant, the father can say the shahida on the childs behalf - in which case the question would be did Obamas dad ever do so - my sense is that Obamas dad wasnt religious, and didnt do so. Any evidence otherwise? And when did Luttwak become an expert on Sharia? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-05-12 13:11 |