Muslim Smear v2.0
Obama is falsely accused of being an apostate in the New York Times.
Ali Eteraz refutes at the Huffington Post:
people that appear to be Muslims, but don’t follow Islam and choose another religion, are permitted under Islamic law to leave Islam without penalty. A major case in Malaysia recently handed down — a woman who was Muslim for some time in order to marry an Iranian was permitted to go back to Buddhism — is an example. Obama, unlike the Malaysian woman, didn’t even make a profession of faith to Islam, so it makes even less sense for him to be considered an apostate.
[…]
No call to prayer in the ear, not raised as a Muslim, born to an atheist father, and then abandoned to a Christian mother both by father and his family, equals not Muslim. Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian.
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
21 comments
No, no, no, don’t you get it? Exposure to Islam equals exposure to evil mind-controlling death cult. Anything bad that anyone raised even a little bit Muslim does is attributable to Islam, whereas all other worldwide religions, particularly Christianity, are by their very nature democratic, tolerant, peaceful, and enlightened, and therefore anything an evil person raised Christian does is to be blamed on something else entirely.
Come on man, it’s so obvious. Anything else would be "attacking Christianity."
this is a good point.
muslims are klingons!
no, wait, muslims are orcs.
Aziz Poonawalla’s last blog post..Muslim Smear v2.0
I think it’s pretty clear that there’s some real basis behind the Obama’s-a-Muslim smear. In addition to Luttwak’s arguments, there’s this.
The larger point, though, is "so what?" Luttwak’s position seems to devolve to a question of how a (presumed) apostate will be viewed in and handled by the Islamic world, and for me that’s pretty much a non-starter. Sure, there may be some difficulties (giving Luttwak the benefit of the doubt; personally, I think his fears are quite overblown), but the idea that we, in choosing a President, should take into account how some foreign quarters might view that President’s religious history is laughable at best and highly insulting at worst.
In addition, the American electorate - for all its demonstrated ignorance in general and fearful hysteria about certain religious questions (cough atheism cough cough) in specific - is more than capable of invoking the fundamental classical-liberal dictum of treating religion as a private matter, separate and distinct from public life.
It’s my opinion that both sides in this fight are being seriously disingenuous and should really stick to more important matters.
One would hope Ali would bring more credible facticity to the internet to support his claims.
It says a lot of different stuff here about Obama.
McKiernan,
you couldn’t possibly have read Ali’s post. His argument doesn’t hinge in the slightest on whether Obama "really" was a Muslim or not when he was a kid, some dude’s blog post notwithstanding.
Myself, I don’t care whether Obama is a Muslim or not. But I take him at his word that he is a Christian.
Bigger question: If you are a practicing Muslim, can you simply convert to Christianity (if you so choose) without fear of reprisals from other Muslims?
If not, Why not?
HB
If Senator Obama were smart, he would perform a bit of campaign judo that would heal the party, seal up the nomination, and maybe even seal up the general. When he comes to Grand Rapids this week, he should demand that Howard Dean certify and seat the Michigan and Florida delegates as is, with delegates for Senator Clinton but none for him. Tactically, he doesn’t really need any delegates from these states, and Senator Clinton’s delegates wouldn’t be enough to make a big difference in the end. Strategically, he would take the wind out of her sails, he would make the party more competitive in these states for the general, and he would be able to claim an aura of statesmanship that would win over the superdelegates.
zach,
Have you any interest in any actual facts re: Obama.
The areas of concern that Ali did not address in his criticism of the Edward Luttwak article are:
More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known - as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House.
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 Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.
McKiernan,
frankly I trust Obama to know the facts of his childhood better than his "friend" quoted at the site you linked, whose veracity and motivations aren’t at all clear. Not only that, but I recall a NBC news visit to Obama’s old school a few weeks ago where nobody seemed to think Obama was particularly Muslim. So, I don’t know, in as much as there are facts to be found, are you interested in them?
Secondly, Luttwak is the height of doublespeak here. "I’m not saying that the reaction of foreign communities should be a factor in your vote, but…you know…foreign communities….they should be a factor."
Thirdly, Luttwak simply asserts that the Muslim communities would be aflame with violent rage at Obama’s conversion. Where is the evidence? The NBC clip seems to suggest the exact opposite. The most populous Muslim country has practically adopted Obama, even knowing the hay that’s been made out of his supposed conversion or whatever. Not only that, but as Ali states in his article, apostasy charges require a state apparatus to function. Barring the U.S. suddenly burning the constitution and sweeping in Sharia reforms, I think that possibility is unlikely.
I think Ali (and Aziz) need some reading comprehension. Luttwak is arguing that those who claim Obama’s Muslim ties will give him a greater ability to successfully deal with the Muslim world are incorrect.
Claiming that he doesn’t have any Muslim ties doesn’t refute that statement. Claiming that he won’t be hated any more then a ‘Western Cowboy’ doesn’t refute that statement either.
The only thing that attempts to refute the main thesis, is the idea that Muslim’s don’t really care about apostacy, asserted based upon an ‘unusual case’ in a Malaysian court. I don’t think that is very convincing. When it is no longer ‘news’ for such a thing to happen, that would be something, better would be that such a question would never go to a civil court at all.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Kindle
That might be true in Malaysia, but it sure as hell isn’t in places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Apostasy is still punishable by death in some countries.
Zach,
The clean plate theory, espoused by Ali, that Barry had no religion until he was baptized by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at age 31 is not supported by known educational and family history data:
Barack Obama’s Muslim Childhood
I liked the part where he had trouble during Koran studies.
Draw you own conclusions, everyone else does.
Is it fair to ask Ali,
how many athiest fathers give their children the middle name of Hussein ?
"how many athiest fathers give their children the middle name of Hussein ?"
How many atheist fathers name their children Christopher? Or Mary? Or Moses? Or Abraham?
How many Christian fathers name their children Karl (as in Marx) or Charles (as in Darwin) or Richard (as in Dawkins)?
And what the heck does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Martin,
Good on you. You tried to kill the thread earlier on and now, you’re into tea in china replies.
The facts are, is that Aziz and Ali and Dean are long gone, unwilling, and unable to defend their positions or respond to a few actual facts regarding Barry’s schooling or else they never had any intention of ever responding.
Do you need more links ?
I have plenty.
Then again, why do I remember an old internet adage usually referred to as:
“fact-check their ass.”
No, McKiernan, all that’s going on is that you’re doing your usual spittle-spewing crazy old man schtick, saying things that make absolutely no sense to anyone reading this thread.
No Dean,
This is what doesn’t make sense because it is false as in not truthful :
"Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian." Ali Eteraz
Had you bothered to read the links I provided, you would of necessity have come to the conclusion, that Barry Obama did in fact have a muslim background.
Martin presents a link from NBC saying Obama wasn’t muslim but it ignores the fact that for three year prior to the public school Obama attended, he is registered in school documents as of muslim faith. He lived in a muslim neighborhood, and attended friday prayers with his muslim step-father wearing muslim clothes.
So instead of calling me a spittled senseless old man, maybe you could in fact read a little more background links on Barry.
Vanderleun calls it fact checking.
Then, again, we wouldn’t want any facts get in the way during political season.
No Dean, wrong.
This is what doesn’t make any sense because it is false as in not truthful.
“Obama is right to say he had no religion until he became a Christian.” Ali Eteraz
Martin links to an NBC story in which the public school he attend for one year indicates he was not religious. But it fails to include the evidence that three years prior Barry is registered in school documents as of muslim faith.
He lived in a muslim neighborhood in Jakarta, had a muslim step-father and attended Friday prayer with him wearing muslim clothing.
Had you bothered to read here or the link in comment 15 above, you might come to the conclusion that Ali is wrong.
Then again, facts are such messy things during political season.
Let’s ignore them and let bloggers post stuff that isn’t true on the front page.
Give it up, Dean. McKiernan is so brilliant, he has refuted a link I never even posted! Against logic and reason and wit and (lest we forget) reading comprehension skills like that, what chance have we mere mortals?
(My word, the ODS folks are starting to make the BDS folks look almost sane…)
Martin, Good on you. You tried to kill the thread earlier on and now, you’re into tea in china replies.
Minor correction 1.
Good on you Martin. You tried to kill the thread earlier on and now, you’re into McKiernan is so brilliant.
I’ll accept that.
Minor correction 2.
Misattribution, zach not martin re: comment 18.
Thanks,
You must log in to post a comment.