All Comments (140)

"As the legal schools disagreed on how various provisions were properly applied to these respective categories, jurists never achieved universal consensus on the proper legal implications of apostasy." - Daisy Khan.

I urge the writer not to fudge the issue. Muslims are directed to Kill all apostates without exception. In muslim majority countries, apostates are killed without exception and with impunity. In western societies, muslims may be a little hesistant because they will face criminal justice. However, that has not stopped some from trying. In fact, most if not all apostates requires 24 hour security in Europe and America. Can someone tell me if the phrase "love they neighbor" or its equivalent found in the Quran.

To Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

In your post on:

Other elements of our War on Terror:

you mentioned

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces
of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

You conveniently did not say that in this day and age, in a middle of modern advanced society such as Europe, an aggression was allowed in the name of Christians to ethnically cleanse a most moderate in the world Muslim population in Bosnia. Sarajevo was under siege for 3.5 years like we lived in a middle age. In internationally proclaimed safe-heaven in Srebrenica 7,000 men and boys were killed just because they had muslim names. People in Bosnia could not defend themselves because Europe and US imposed arms embargo on defenders because attackers already had arms and had no problem to get more. For 4 years everybody was watching while the aggression by one state over other state and terrible atrocities were taking place. The result was 250,000 killed and, from total of 4.5 million in population, almost 1 million refugees around the world who cannot yet return. The government is completely blocked by those very same politicians who want to complete ethnic cleansing in a non-aggressive way, while the war criminals are still at large. The worst part or adding insult to the injury was the piece agreement imposed by US and Europe to legalize the ethnic cleansing by splitting the country in half along newly established ethic lines and giving away one half to those very same aggressors who can block any democratic decisions as they please.
As other million people out of Bosnia, I will be for ever split in half, between my new and old country.
What is the international community, dominated by Christian governments, doing to fix this grave injustice done to people who did not deserve it?

Your another statement:

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Comment: Why did you not mention atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were those innocent killed civilians bad people?

To conclude, I do not dispute that Muslim dominated religious governments are not at fault,you bet they are and they need to clean up their acts. But what is the example that advanced modern countries are giving them? Based on the recent experience with Bosnia I believe they offer only double standards and for ever dividing motto: we are better then they, we are the good guys and they are bad. Even if they are good now, we better take control over them to prevent them to become somebody not according to our standards.

I'm waiting for Eboo Patel, Ms. Khan, and other Muslim contributors to respond to the following from today's POST:

"Saudi Critic Jailed After Decrying Justice System
By Faiza Saleh Ambah
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, May 21, 2008; A13
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia, May 20 -- An outspoken critic of the Saudi government who was previously jailed for calling for greater democracy has been arrested, his wife said Tuesday..."

No doubt the floodgates will now be opened and we will read a tsunami of words telling us that this has nothing to do with Islam. Nothing in the Koran, the Hadith, or any other authoritative source of Islamic beliefs and practices requires this suppression of freedom of expression. In fact, if we ignorant non-Muslims will just take the time to learn more about Islam, we will find that its is a peace-loving religion that promotes equality among all human beings. Why, the great Muslim scholar Ibn Ahmad Talid pointed out in a learned treatise in 1521 CE that the Koran actually fosters democracy, and that conclusion was recently reinforced by the teachings of a professor at Al Azhar University and seconded by the popular TV and radio personality Ali Ahmad Muhammad. The winds of change are sweeping the Muslim world, and if we non-Muslims will stop examining Islam through the prism of our white, Christian, Eurocentric blinders, we will see what a wonderful blessing Islam is.

Why, doesn't the annual Hajj, where all participants shed their personal identities and don the same clothes and perform the same rituals, prove what an equality-promoting religion Islam really is?

Over to you, Ms. Khan.

Questions directed at TIM, CONCERNED CHRISTIAN, ANONYMOUS (or anyone):

What would predominantly Muslim countries have to do to qualify as acceptable - IE: open to trade in economic and scientific goods, tourism- to you? How would they have to operate in civic governance and culturally to be granted that privledge? What do they currently do to meet those critera? Please be specific.

Notice the question: what must they do? I did not ask what must they NOT do. Again, please be specific.

TIM quoted Matthew 7:15 to be wary of false prophets (wolves in sheeps clothing), and to that I ask how would any reader here know what qualifies? Is it anyone asking for peace and understanding? Is it anyone who says that Muslims can be treated as equals without needing to convert? Be specific. Also, TIM, be reminded of Matthew 7:1-5. Western civilization (including but not limited to the United States) has a rich history of persecuting it's own 'heathen natives' to support it's own civic, or government ends. Before you start saying, "Well we don't do that anymore, we must have learned our lesson!" I ask you to look around and see how many heathen natives are still populating our country on the same socio-economic parity as the decendants of the colonial people? Not many. We stopped because there aren't any left. It's very, very easy to play 'good cop' when you don't need 'bad cops' anymore.

ANONYMOUS SAYS:

Let me repeat my major point: Who, other than yourselves, do you think is impressed with all this erudition (or pseudo-erudition)? Does the term "preach to the choir" mean anything to you? I repeat: All we non-Muslims need to know about Islam is found by looking at the political, social, and religious customs and practices prevailing in Muslim countries. Read my lips (well, my words): THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW. All else is tinker toys.

How true ANONYMOUS. Jesus said it this way in Mathew Chapter 7 starting with verse 15.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."

It is amazing how naïve people are about the persecution going on in Islamic countries. We live in this age of TV, Cell phones, faxes and satellites. Yet, many people are blinded by the sweet talk from people like those who represent Islam in this WAPO blog.

Regardless of all this, The Lord is drawing many from Islam to the Cross of Jesus Christ. And hopefully many who read what you say will increasingly focus on the actions and not the words of Muslims. We want to see results not just words that in many cases completely contradict the actual actions.

Test

My first post on this topic pointed out that Ms. Khan had sought refuge in the obfuscation and obscuratanism that Muslims turn to when called upon to defend their religion. The primary instrument of this approach is an endless recitation of Koranic verses, the Hadith, and the writings of as many Islamic authorities as any one submission can bear. As expected, other Muslims seized Ms. Khan's precedent and ran with it, quickly turning this particular blog into a pluperfect example of what I'm talking about.

I thought they had about exhausted themselves, and then comes the major tome by ANONYMOUS, posted May 18, 2008 1:47 PM. Now, Anonymous, you may well have made some points here, but do you really believe many people are going to make their way through all that prose? I am astounded that there are so many Muslims who have nothing better to do than wallow in the weeds of the Koran, Islamic scholarly writings, etc., etc., and then make a data dump into web blogs.

Let me repeat my major point: Who, other than yourselves, do you think is impressed with all this erudition (or pseudo-erudition)? Does the term "preach to the choir" mean anything to you? I repeat: All we non-Muslims need to know about Islam is found by looking at the political, social, and religious customs and practices prevailing in Muslim countries. Read my lips (well, my words): THAT IS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW. All else is tinker toys.

Since, as I predicted several days ago, no Muslim has dared answer my questions that get us to the heart of Islam and its compatibility with modern society, let me repeat them:

What would the most authoritative voices of Islam say in answer to the five questions posed below. That is, don't give me your personal viewpoint. I want you to tell us what the most authoritative voices of orthodox Islam would say.

Here are the questions:
1.Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state?
2.Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women?
3.Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? For example, if a Muslim male married a Christian female, would the husband and wife be able to say to their children, “We will attend the mosque on Friday and the church on Sunday and consider ourselves a bi-religious family. When each of you is 18 years old, you will be free to choose. You can continue our bilateral approach; or, you can choose one religion over the other; or, you can choose another religion altogether.”
4.What does Islam say (according to the above authoritative voices) should be the fate of heretics? For example, if a member of the Egyptian soccer team got up tomorrow morning and announced he was converting from Islam to Christianity and changing his name from Mohammad Ali to Cassius Clay, what do the authoritative voices of Islam say should be his fate?
5.Does Islam allow for the publication of a scholarly book alleging that Mohammad was a fraud?

(Alternatively, instead of imagining these questions posed to the authoritative voices of Islam, imagine the question is, “What would Islamic textbooks used in the teaching of Muslim students in America say in answer to the following questions?”)

The answers to these questions will reveal whether there is some debate among Muslims over the future of their religion. Or whether even orthodox Islam can be accommodated to a Western liberal, pluralistic society.

The founder and foundation of Islam vitiates any consideration that Islam is a peaceful religion.

To wit:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/ mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Majority of muslims believe in modern quranic interpretation. Asghar ali is often quoted because
its the only one available in detail in the net.Some people just dont want to believe Islam is a peaceful religion.They are against progressive and peace loving muslims.They love to spread false allegations that all muslims are violent, how else could they justify killings of thousands of innocent muslims in Iraq ,Afghanistan,Palestine and around the world?

OBSERVER said:
It is only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians that the Christians of Europe finally acted.

And act they did. They could draw great inspiration for those acts from Micah 5:15 -

And I will execute vengeance in anger and fury upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

Does Micah 5:15 abrogate Mathew 5:44 (love thy enemy), or Acts 7:60 (pray for your enemy), or Proverbs 25:21 and Romans 12:20 (Give assistance (food/water) to a hungry/thirsty enemy, or to smother then with kindess - 1 Samuel 26:21?

The Us vs Them nature of scripture-interpreted-by-scholar religions makes them inherently conflictive with eachother. Especially when they are both born of the same Cradle of Civilization.

You can do one of two things with that conflict:

Perpetuate the stalemate - as all 'wars of ideology' will eventually come to (since ideology is not itself a physical thing)- or focus on common causes and move on united in action but not comprimised in individuality.

A synopsis of the "fems" of all the "Abrahamic" religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequences.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

RCG says:

"Turn the other cheek" became the crusades (several, in fact)."

The Crusades were a clumsy and rather belated response to a long series of encroachments by Islam against the Lands of the Christians, and fighting back should not be considered as tarnishing the defenders' image.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army. It is only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians that the Christians of Europe finally acted.

OBSERVER points to an essay on passages in the Holy Quran condoning violence that supposedly canel out passages written earlier that condemn it.

Christianity as it evolved over the years from a humble cult passifist Semites to a full blown inquisiting, murdering church, to the many-facteted belief system it is today along many similar lines. "Turn the other cheek" became the crusades (several, in fact).

It is also often argued that Islam is what it's scholars say it is, and therefor it's subjugation of women (for example)is justified. As with all scholarship, it changes depending whom is asked. Christianity is no different:

"For, other things being equal, greater faith is to be placed in the revelations of men. The feminine sex is more foolish, and more apt to mistake natural or demoniacal suggestions for ones of Divine origin. Women, too, are of a more humid and viscous nature, more easily influenced to percieve various phantoms, and slower and more loath to resist such impulses. Therefore, women are quicker to imagine, but men are less obstinate in holding to their imaginings; and since women have less power of reasoning and less wisdom, it is easier for the devil to delude them with false and deceptive apparitions" (Compendium Maleficarum, the Montague Summers Edition; pg137. Dover, NY, 1988. Originally written by Friar Francesco Maria Guazzo, order of S. Ambrose, May 1608)

Friar Guazzo was a religious scholar and oversaw "many other women condemned to the fire for witchcraft, whose names I do not now remember" (ibid, pg. 133). Although his antiquated writings provide interesting historical context, I would not trust their judgement currently.

Another article, consiquently, on the site OBSERVER suggested can be found here:
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/call.htm

It is a call to "White Americans" to protect their history, ethnicity, etc. I couldn't help but giggle as I read it.

Point is, when you take a religious text -ANY religious text- and try to build secular functionality on it, professed scholars will twist it -intentionally or not- to their own ends, and those need to be looked at in historical context, and judged against the current needs of the people following it.

Concerned-

To my western mind- Islam is a prison maze.

You may be enticed to believe through birth or marriage, friendship or political necessity- but once in- there is no way out. Anyone who has read the Koran will recognise this.

Allah is very fickle in his generosity and strict in punishment. If you are a strong and independent thinker and dare to question- you will most certainly be told you will roast in hell for eternity, be shunned by your co-religionists, and risk being killed by a family member.

Instead on speaking openly- "Jihadist" notes a name's origin and points a finger. What she believes is clever- reads as rancor. If hers were a religion of peace, she would not need subterfuge.. Just read her posts- conceal, evade, and escape direct questioning.

Sanjay Mittal's post is accurate. The bravest and strongest voices condemning the atrocities being committed in the name of Allah are progressive and ex-Muslims. As more and more free-thinking Muslims find a voice to question and criticize- the free world must listen carefully then provide shelter and support. Its a natural alliance.

And the "fems" of Islam continue to be subjects The Jihadist cannot bring herself to discuss. Why?? Fear of Islamic death squads? Fear of the truth? Fear of her husband? Fear of/for her family? Fear of the Jinni? Having such fears simply and tragically adds to the "fems" of Islam!!!

Anonymous, aka Asim, pasted a long article by someone calling himself Ali Asghar to"prove Islam affords its followers a "freedom of conscience". Asghar "supported" his claim by listing a large number of verses. He simply ignored to mention that each of those listed somehow tolerant verses was abrogated (cancelled) by later intolerant verses.
You and I think this to be disingenuous, but to Muslims this is Taqiyyah;a permissable lie if it furthers the cause of their religion.

Below is a more detailed invalidation of Asghar,s thesis.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/verses.htm -

Two Words:

So what?

SARI says: If we examine the Muslim countries of the world, Luttwak has a point. I do not think anyone will really care so much in Turkey or Indonesia or Morocco. However, in countries that have strict anti-apostasy laws, there may be some problems if Obama is viewed as an apostate. The question is whether political pragmatism will override religious dogma. ...Those who do not like him can pull the murtad card.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

says that 'murtad fitri' are apostates born of Muslim parents. He only had ONE parent, and that may or may not qualify him as an apostate since he (so claims) was not raised in any way Muslim. He could not be 'murtad milli', since he never converted. I have a feeling that 'political pragmatism' will override any apostasty cards pulled.

RC said:
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is an ARAB - American.

Why does this matter? For a few reasons, one of which is he lied and twisted facts to get scholarships to four different elite, private schools, saying he was an African-American. He was supposed to have 1/8 African American blood, but he has only 6.5% African blood - 43.5% Arab, and 50% white.

RC, that stinks of eugenics. He's not a chow-rotweiler mix with just a touch of pitbull. He's a human being. In this country, we're allowed the right to self-identify. Enough of us are of mixed herritage that it's foolish to say we're this or that. He's an American citizen. He's educated (no matter how he scraped together the money to get it, as myself and many others cannot). Who cares what percentage of anything he is? As enough percentage to self-identify as a Native American, I say: GET OFF MY LAND. What weight does that carry? None. Why? Because I'm first and foremost an American citizen, entitled to the same rights, prividges and elected offices as you. If you want to hold him accountable for his associations, that's your business.

SAID said (paraphrased): Electing Obama to the office of President will help wipe the stain of slavery off of American history.

No, it won't. Nothing ever will. A 4-year term will not erase hundreds of years of slavery, nor the precident it set for the FOLLOWING hundreds of years of systematic disenfranchisement. As GEORGIASON pointed out, only a very limited number of people actually owned slaves (Native Americans did too, by the way). However, it has also been historical precedent that wealthy agriculturalists, merchants and businessmen have controlled ruling parties in American government from it's inception. You cannot erase the shameful shadows of history. Only learn from them.

CONCERNED CHRISTIAN, SOMALI: You forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. PAGANPLACE often points out atrocities commited in the name of Christianity to further that point - Perspective Is Everything.

On the larger world stage, I believe - and certainly hope - that heads of state will pay attention to what's important: Peace. Stability. Feeding/Employing/Housing citizanry. Utilization of natural resources. The things that governments do, so the rest of us can bicker on editorial comment boards nobody but ourselves read. :}

Sanjay Mittal : "SO maybe Daisy Khan should address this article to the managers of Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world. In case a fatwa follows her, for this thought, we should all protect her...:)"

That was most kind and thoughtful of you.

Any thoughts on the increasing numbers of female infacticides in India that worries Hon. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister, to make a statement about it? Something about not being able to claim India to be part of the civilised world if that is allowed to continue. It would clear our misconception on that - killing babies just for being females as the preference is for male offsprings and not even on choices of faith as adults.

"Peace" "Peace" they say- when there is no peace.

Jesus said:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE IN KORAN

http://www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/wisdom.htm

Its more informative to read about believers told in the koran to terrorize unbelievers by chopping off their heads and fingertips..

Everytime the news tells of someone's head or fingers being removed by a terrorist- remember this:

QURAN 8

12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

13. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

14. Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

LAST POST COPIED FROM:

ISLAM AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Asghar Ali Engineer

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islam_and_religious_freedom/

It is crystal clear to those who study Islam carefully that Islam upholds religious freedom as far as some basic frame-work of its teachings is not violated. But no religion, or any political ideology for that matter, can permit violation of its basic framework. If the very basic framework is violated the religion will cease to exist. In other words religion cannot be reformed out of existence. As we say a person cannot sign his own death warrant, a religion cannot allow itself to be done away with. However, one should be free to renounce his/her religion if it ceases to appeal to his/her conscience. A religion which does not appeal to once conscience or does not form part of once inner conviction can have no meaning for that person. But does Islam permit this freedom of conscience? In my considered opinion it does. But why then some Islamic countries insist on punishment of death for renouncing Islam (i.e. irtidad)? We will throw light on this little later. However, such a punishment for renouncing Islam cannot be supported from the Qur’anic teachings. There is no verse directly supporting such punishment. Of course there are ahadith quoted in its support. But these ahadith need to be examined carefully. Not only their authenticity but also their context needs to be looked into.

But most important thing is that religion is an integral part of once inner conviction and is a matter of once conscience. Even according to a hadith mere confession by tongue (iqrar bi’ al-lisan) is not enough . It must be followed by an inner endorsement or once conscience (tasdiq bi’ al-janan). Mere confession by once tongue will not acquire the status of truly held conviction. The Qur’an clearly declares la ikrah fi’ al-din (2:256) i.e. there cannot be in compulsion in religion.It is declaration of a universally valid principle rather than any contextual statement. It is valid until today and will remain valid in future also. It is also substantiated by the fact that Islam accepted validity of other contemporary religions like Judaism, Christianity etc. and even permitted marriages with them. They were not coerced into accepting Islam at all. Any coercion wold lead to acceptance by tongue, not endorsement by heart.

Here in the above verse the word used is din which is usually translated as religion. But it has wider meaning. The word din not only includes the moral law but also pertains to its doctrinal contents and their practical implications, as well as to man’s attitude towards the object of his worship, thus comprising also the concept of “faith”. Thus according to the Qur’an human being is absolutely free to pursue religion of his/her choice. And this freedom does not pertain to only acceptance or non-acceptance of Islam; it also pertains to renunciation of Islam. Many Muslim jurists may reject this outright and maintain that though one is free to accept or not accept Islam but having accepted it one is not free to renounce it. Thus according to them freedom is limited to only acceptance or non-acceptance of Islam but does not extend to its renunciation. This position does not appear to be logical. Freedom of conscience cannot be a one way traffic. Obviously the freedom of renunciation was curtailed for political and not religious reason.

If the Islamic jurists seek to circumscribe the freedom to renounce Islam the question is whether it is based on Qur’an or on hadith (i.e. the Prophet’s sayings). A careful study of the holy Qur’an shows that there is no basis whatsoever in it to sustain such a position i.e. qatl-e-murtad (i.e. slaying of one renouncing Islam). On the contrary there is a verse in the Holy Book which leaves one in no doubt that such a punishment has no basis and that it is based on the opinion of jurists and that these jurists took this position to protect interests of state rather than those of Islam. Thus we find in the verse 4:137 in the Qur’an “ Those who believe then disbelieve (kafaru), again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them or guide them in the (right) way.”

If the punishment for irtidad had been death this verse would have clearly mentioned it. The above verse (4:13), on the other hand, says that even those who believe and then disbelieve and again believe and then again disbelieve Allah will not pardon them and will not show them the right way. Had Allah wanted to punish murtad (i.e. renouncer) of Islam by death He would have clearly mentioned it. But He simply says He would not pardon them and would not show them the right path. The Qur’an firmly believes in the doctrine of the freedom of conscience and forcefully states it in the verse 18:29 thus: “And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and lt him who please disbelieve. This verse is clear proof that freedom of conscience cannot be made available one way only. It has to be both ways. If one renounces Islam it is for Allah to punish him or not but certainly not for human beings to do so. If some one feels strongly about renunciation of Islam by once friend, neighbour or relative, one may try to pursue him or her not to do so. But certainly he or she cannot e killed. Islam is quite modern in this respect. It upheld the doctrine of freedom of conscience many centuries before modernists and secularists did. It is unfortunate that what some jurists maintained primarily for political reasons is sought to be perpetuated.

The Qur’an repeats the doctrine of freedom of conscience so often that it cannot be ignored by any student of the holy scripture. It says in 6:105, “ Clear proofs have indeed come to you; from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a keeper over you.” Again in the same chapter verse 108 Allah says, “ And if Allah had pleased they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him (ma ashraku); hence We have not made thee their keeper, and neither art thou responsible for their conduct.” And the next verse (109) goes on to say: “ But do not revile those (beings) whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite, and in ignorance…”

As pointed out above the word din (religion) includes not only moral law but also ways of worship and related matters. As the Qur’an believes in freedom of religion it also repeatedly says that let people worship the way they want; do not quarrel over it. However what is important is to excel each other in good deeds. Thus the Qur’an sas: “for every community faces direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works.” (2:148) Thus there is no compulsion in the ways of worshipping Him also. It is also a matter of ones conscience. However, what is most important is to excel each other in good deeds. Thus whatever way we look the Qur’an upholds the doctrine of freedom of conscience. The Qur’an’s approach is remarkably modern. One cannot doubt about its openness to other faiths and traditions. Its doctrine of da`wah (mission) is also not burdened with any doctrine of compulsion of any kind. It exhorts the faithfuls to “ Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125). Thus according to the Qur’an preaching also should not have any manner of compulsio. It should be done in a way which will appeal to the conscience of one to whom da`wah is directed. Thus da`wah should not encroach upon any ones freedom of conscience.. It is most fundamental right and is worthy of respect in all circumstances.

Then the question arises why the Islamic jurists prescribed punishment of death for irtidad (i.e. renunciation of Islam)? It was, as pointed out, more for political than religious reasons. This juristic opinion was not based on any religious injunctions but on political environment. The state always has its own reasons, its own considerations of security and stability. It was feared that a person renouncing Islam is likely to collude with the enemies of the state and thus pose a danger for it. Anyone renouncing Islam and adopting Christianity, for example, could collude with Christian rulers with whom the Islamic State of the time was at war and pose great danger. Thus in an Islamic state renunciation of Islam was equated with sedition against the state and sedition is often punished by death. Many juristic opinions of this nature like the concept of Dar al-Islam

Or Dar al-harb etc. need to be re-examined in this context. Today people live in secular democracies and equal rights, including the right to profess, practice and propagate ones own religion fully guaranteed by the constitutions. Such countries cannot be construed as what the Islamic jurists called dar al-harb

Thus the punishment for irtidad or renunciation of Islam also has to be seen in this context. Today in democracy the concept of human rights is quite central to it. All citizens, irrespective of their religious persuasion are equal. Freedom of conscience is most fundamental to secular democracy. All citizens are free to pursue their own religious convictions or change them, if they please. Also, every citizen is free to renounce his or her religion and adopt any other or none, for that matter. There is no question of anyone being punished for this. Similarly in the Muslim countries if any citizen renounces Islam, he or she is not going to be for that reason enemy of that state. Today international law governs the relations between various countries and the United Nations play increasingly important role in governing international relationships. In medieval ages renunciation of Islam could very well be construed as sedition but it is no more valid in our own times. During that period Christians were also not free to renounce their religion. They were burnt at stake for this `crime’. Thus entire juris corpus needs to be revised in this respect.

Thus in the whole debate the inner conviction is most fundamental and any law which violates the doctrine of inner conviction cannot be accepted. The Qur’an also bases acceptance of religion on this doctrine and hence gives full freedom of religion. According to the Qur’an anything based on inner conviction leads to what it significantly calls sakinat al-qalb ( i.e. peace of heart). The word I’man (faith) also indicates this. The root meaning of this word is security and deep conviction. No one can be true Muslim without I’man (faith). Mere profession without inner conviction is not accepted even by the Qur’an as genuine faith. Thus the Qur’an says, “ The Bedouin say, `We have attained faith.’ Say (unto them O Muhammad): `You have not (yet) attained to faith; you should (rather) say, `We have (outwardly) surrendered (aslamu)’ – for (true) faith has not yet entered your hearts.” (49:14). From this verse it is very clear that genuine faith is based on deeper and inner conviction, not merely on surrender or verbal profession. The threat of death can merely make a person retain his her religion without any inner conviction. That is anything but genuine faith. But what the Qur’an aims at is genuine faith and genuine faith is possible only in a truly free society. Freedom of belief is very fundamental to genuine faith.

There are other aspects of religious freedom and we would like to throw some light on these aspects also. In Islam there is no concept of church. No central body is authorised to control religious doctrines. In fact there is no concept of priesthood in Islam. Every individual is free to, and responsible for, his or her own faith. Allah provides guidance (hidaya) to everyone through His prophets. It is for an individual to accept or reject the guidance. If he accepts, it is for his spiritual good and if he rejects, he will face the consequences thereof in this life and in the life to come (aakhirah). It is individual who will be held accountable before God on the Day of Judgement. His argument that the leader misled him would simply be rejected. This approach of the Qur’an, it will be seen, is also remarkably modern . The very concept of modern secular democracy is based on individual rights and responsibilities. This concept is very central to the Quran

Thus not only that a Muslim is not bound by one school or the other he is not bound by fatwa (legal opinion) issued by any mufti (jurist). He is free to reject it and go to some one else, if he is not satisfied by the fatwa. He has full latitude in the matter. Also, no Muslim is bound even to ask a juriconsult about anything. He might find his/her own answer and be satisfied as long as it is based on authoritative sources and not merely on his convenience. The Qur’an, as pointed out above lays full responsibility on the individual, not on the community or the body of any juriconsults. This does not apply to mere legal questions but to all theological ones. For example there are no fixed dogmas about questions like freedom of will or determination or nature of the Qur’an. In the first century of Islam there were different schools of thought on these questions. One school led by the noted Sufi saint Hasan Basri believed in freedom of will whereas another school believed in determination. This question of freedom of will and determination had political rather than theological overtones. Those who supported the Umayyad rule believed in determination implying thereby that Umayyad rule is result of divine determination and any opposition to it amounts to challenge divine determination.

However, the opponents of the Umayyads thought they were usurpers and one must actively oppose their role and they subscribed to the doctrine of freedom of will. There was a third school called Murjia’who believed that one must postpone any action as Allah will decide who is right or wrong. All three schools existed side by side and people freely subscribed to one or the other. The M`utazila school was a rationalist school and for them reason was primary in deciding what is good and what is evil. They argued that Shari`ah held something to be good because reason held it to be good. The Asha`ira School, on the other held that something is good because Shari`ah held it to be good even if reason contradicted it. Similarly the M`utazila (the rationalists) held that the Qur’an was created by Allah and not co-eternal with Him. The orthodox believed, on the other hand, that it is the speech of Allah and hence co-eternal with Him. There was heated controversy about it in early Islam but there was no church to impose these dogmas on the entire body of Muslims. Different schools of thought contested with each other.

Similarly, there was no fixed meaning of the Qur’an universally accepted by all. There were literalists (ahl al-Zahir) who stuck to the literal meaning of the Qur’an. On the other hand there were ahl al-batin also known as batinis who believed in the hidden meaning of the scripture. The Batinis of course developed a church like structure with their own hierarchy. The Batinis also known as Isma`ilis developed church like structure because they constituted an underground movement centrally controlled by the leaders and the leadership was provided by a fixed hierarchy. However, the Batinis were themselves divided in several groups contesting each others positions. The Orthodox too did not have uniform position on important questions – be they theological, juristic or political. They themselves were divided in several schools.

Having stated all this in favour of freedom it must be stated that every school of thought gathered their own followers and over a period of time became rigid orthodoxy. No deviation was permitted. In all these schools the doctrine of taqlid (imitation) was enforced by the `Ulama of subsequent generations. Even the Batinis and Isma`ilis who were rational and generously borrowed from Greek philosophy, developed rigid orthodoxy and even in these schools the role of reason became suspect. Any new thinking was frowned upon. Freshness and creativity was lost. Each school of thought became a powerful establishment and every establishment developed its own vested interests. It is the vested interests who fear freedom and change. The people of inner conviction and commitment welcome it. One has conviction and commitment for values and principles, not dogmas.

Unbelievers- please read what Asim has referenced in his post-

QURAN 8

12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

13. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.

14. Thus (will it be said): "Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire."

15. O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.

16. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!

17. It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah. when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah.s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).

18. That, and also because Allah is He Who makes feeble the plans and stratagem of the Unbelievers.

19. (O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily Allah is with those who believe!

20. O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).

21. Nor be like those who say, "We hear," but listen not:

22. For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are the deaf and the dumb,- those who understand not.

23. If Allah had found in them any good. He would indeed have made them listen: (As it is), if He had made them listen, they would but have turned back and declined (Faith).

24. O ye who believe! give your response to Allah and His Messenger, when He calleth you to that which will give you life; and know that Allah cometh in between a man and his heart, and that it is He to Whom ye shall (all) be gathered.

25. And fear tumult or oppression, which affecteth not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong: and know that Allah is strict in punishment.

If they turn renegade,seize them and slay them wherever you find them 4.89

O you who belive! If any from among you turn back from his religion,then Allah will punish them soon. 5.54

Those who turn back as apostates after the guidance(only islam) was clearly shown to them,Satan has seduced them 47.25

Persecution(feetna/apostate) is gravery/worse then slaughter. COW chapter 217 verse

Whoever changed his religion,then kill him.
Bukhari 9.84.57

What really scares me is myself. Years ago, I was challenged by a co-worker (we were working for NSA) to break the code of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. To my surprise, the decryption not only made sense but it seems to be coming true.

The decryption indicated that there would be a fall of Russia or a change in its form of government and then we would have extremely hard economic times. There would be high inflation, extreme debt--public, private and corporate, and there would be diseases in the beef, pork, and poultry industries. Food would become extremely expensive. Gasoline would be over $5 a gallon.

It looks as if all of those predictions are going to come true.

FROM MY OWN PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW: I see Obama winning the election. If anyone one has noticed that ANY TIME a black has been in charge of anything, it has gone to pot. South Africa and Rhodesia used to export food to the outside world, now that blacks are in charge, they IMPORT their food. They now have a food crisis.

It is my personal opinion that blacks are being set up for failure. The super-rich are controlling the situation and what they want to happen will happen. We have let this situation get out of hand and we are looking at a world wide depression and a change in government. In four years we will not have the same form of government we now have.

Victoria,
Thanks for a well-presented expose.

But will the deaf hear?
will the blind see?
Will those who live in a state of denial comprehend?
Hopefully.

"Ibrahim Mahfouz": don't u have the courage to tell us who are u? We Muslims do not hide ourselves at all. U belong either to AIPAC or an extremist right wing evangalical cult,the Ceheny/Bush Co. It would be good news if u r an apostate-we Muslims have enough baggage as it is.

As to your last response:Ali the great sage and fourth Caliph once said:"I always prevailed when debating a knowlegable person-but always lost when deabting the ignorant."

I might add that people like U fall under two categories:totally ignorant of the subject they are debating-in this case Islam;Or simply live in a state of denail as to the glaring facts-as Bush still is-but continue to insist on their apriorist flawed position regradless...this is nothing new-see Quran,8:22.
End of the story.

Our War on Terror and Aggression:

An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count:

1) Benazir Bhutto

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4056 US troops and 83,521 – 91,094 Iraqi civilians iraqbodycount.org/

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, at least 11 and wounded 85.

5) Bali-in 2002- 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people and 129 people were injured by three Islamic bombers

7) Spain in 2004- 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) Bombings in the UK in 2005- 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! (Or is he???)

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot. One of the most eminent US cultural institutions, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, has performed a landmark concert in North Korea.
The concert included music by Western composers and a Korean folk song, and was broadcast live on local television.

Unfortunately, North Korea’s apparent move toward peace did not last long as they fired test missiles last week and threatened South Korea with military action this week.
5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. Although a bit dated, the terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

14. And of course the bloody terror brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Asim revisited:

You ask if Ibrahim Mahfouz is my real name?
Moi;
IS IT NOT CONCEIVABLE TO YOU THAT I MIGHT BE AN “APOSTATE”?

You ask:
‘why should Africans embrace Islam in such great numbers if it is a faith of slavery?”

Moi: Wrong! They are leaving it by whole tribes at a time. Refer to the report of Sheikh AhmadAl Qatani al Libi
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm

Some of the sub-Saharan Africans were converted to Islam by their Jallaba ( Arab salve traders) who some gave the captive tribesmen a choice to either convert or go into slavery. All the tribesmen had to do to be considered as Muslims is to say ”There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah”. A really good deal. Don’t you think so?

You ask ‘How does the Sudanese who are black have slaves?”
Moi: This is a flagrant proof of how ignorant you are. The tribes of North Sudan are Arabic speaking tribes who are Semite -Negroid hybrid races who identify with the Arabs and are a member of the Arab League. They distinguish themselves from the Negroid races of Eastern and Southern Sudan whom they refer to as “Abeed” or slaves. On the other hand the Negroid tribes of Sudan refer to the Northerners as Jallaba or slave traders.

You make a number of ridiculous claims such as those that follow. I shall let the Omar Pact, the accredited and official policy for the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule do the answering for me.

“In that case non-Muslims had all the rights and obligations as that of Muslims except in two areas: that non-Muslims are exempted from military service and are instead provided with protection by the Muslim.“’

“The second area granted to non-Muslims in a Muslim state is to have their own religious institutions that deal with worship, family laws such as marriage, divorce and inheritance”

“This is a practical manifestation of their right to freedom of conscious, a scared right in Islam .”

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

To Ted Baines:

It's funny how you cite Hadith's but conveniently leave out the most important parts. You love to cut and paste for your convenience and leave out the meat.

Here is the Hadith that Ted Baines "cut and pasted":
"Here is what Islam really teaches.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794:(Sahih Bukhari)

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine. They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment they took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were caught and brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die."

I don't know where you get your sources from but here is what the Hadith really says:
"Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794:(Sahih Bukhari)

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine. They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment they took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were caught and brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die."
And here is the source I am citing it from -
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.794

Ted Baines left out two of the most important sentences which make up the essence of the Hadith. Those two sentences are: "after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away."

Ted Baines, the people recovered from their ailment and in return, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) gets a shepherd slaughtered and camels stolen. You tell me what the punishment for that should be. Killing someone in the state of Virginia is punishable by death in case you didn't know. It wasn't the reverting to their previous religion that got them killed, it was the stealing of camels and the murder of a shepherd.

Asim asks:

"Is Ibrahim Mahfouz your real name?"
Moi:
IS IT NOT CONCEIVABLE TO YOU THAT I MIGHT BE AN “APOSTATE”?

You ask:
"Why should Africans embrace Islam in such great numbers if it is a faith of slavery?"
Moi:
Wrong! They are leaving it by whole tribes at a time. Refer to the report of Sheikh Ahmad Al Qatani al Libi. Some of the sub-Saharan Africans were converted to Islam by their Jalaba (salve traders) who some gave the captive tribesmen a choice to either convert or be sold as slaves. All the tribesmen had to do to be considered as Muslims is to say ”There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah”. A really good deal. Don’t you think so?

Asim makes a number of ridiculous claims such as those that follow. I shall let the so called Omar Pact, the accredited and official policy for the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, do the answering for me.

“In that case non-Muslims had all the rights and obligations as that of Muslims except in two areas: that non-Muslims are exempted from military service and are instead provided with protection by the Muslim."

“The second area granted to non-Muslims in a Muslim state is to have their own religious institutions that deal with worship, family laws such as marriage, divorce and inheritance.”

“This is a practical manifestation of their right to freedom of conscious, a scared right in Islam .”

Omar Pact:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html

Obama is not a Muslim,nor is he a citizen of a Muslim state nor is there a punishment for apostacy as confirmed by leading Muslim Scholars such as Dr.Taha Alwani,presdient of Cordova University in Virginia and Dr.Yousef Qaradawi.

So why is all this fuss?? Why not discuess the over one million dead iraqis,the four million iraqi refugees,the starvation of and collective punishment of millins of PAlestinians in the Aushwitz #2 (Gaza) and the over 600 military check points that suffocate PAlestinains in the West BAnk where Palestinian women labor and give birth at these check points while the soldiers of the "only democracy in the ME" enjoy the show.

Is raising Obama's "apostacy" designed to distract from such israeli attrocities and occupation and the disastrous wars on iraq and Afghanistan?? If it is not Rev.Right,it's aposatcy...or something else-all boiling down to racism and bigtory...

The editors of the NYT should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such hate provoking smear material which is mainly aimed at American Muslims who are loyal to America and have never spied on it-as Johnathan Pollard and Ben Amy Kadish did.
Lutwaak manufactured this issue to continue the entertaining show of bashing Islam and Muslims-how regerttable.

Asim says-

"main stream ISlamic scholar Dr.Yousef Qaradaqwi"

--Yusuf al-Qaradawi has a prominent role within the thought leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is an Islamist, who rejects universal human rights and some of the fundamentals of democracy, and endorses Palestinian suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

This is your idea of "mainstream"? Anyone who encourages suicide and the murder of innocents is exalting death. It is despicable.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Eliminating the "fems"(flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Islam would eliminate any consideration of the killing apostates.

To refresh your neurons, the "fems" of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3 That Shiites are less than human or Sunnis are less than human depending on what Islamic cult you belong to.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

5. Recent examples of the muck and stench of Islamic terror:

The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

First of all, under orthodox Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy can only be carried out by the state. Luttwack, with his facile understanding of Sharia, clearly doesn't understand this. The clerics Luttwack is talking about can't just stroll up to Obama and stick him in the sand. They have to go through the established procedural norms of Islamic criminal law which is inherently tied to the functioning of a state apparatus. This means that a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan would have to indict Obama on apostasy charges in their courts. Obviously this is not going to happen, because none of these countries have jurisdiction over Obama. Not only is it asinine for any of these countries to make such an indictment, it doesn't make sense under international law -- which, in case Mr. Luttwack has forgotten, is what the world is suppose to abide by. Luttwack's affirmation of Islamic law over and above international law should raise concerns, not only about his expertise, but also his allegiances.

Second, it may be true that there will be fanatics who believe that they can flout the rules of Islamic law and try to assassinate Obama without permission from a state. However, these people probably want to assassinate American presidents regardless -- so considering their opinion is a bit farcical. Is there a functional difference between a fanatic that wants to kill our president because he is a Western Cowboy and a fanatic that wants to kill our president because he is a Western Apostate? Luttwack's article is solid fear-mongering.

Third, 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.

Fourth, Islamic law recognizes abandonment by the biological father. Obama's Kenyan father abandoned Obama. As such, any religious imprimatur he may have had over Obama -- which is already a stretch since the man was an atheist -- is null and void. In such a situation, Obama's mother's religion is controlling. She was not Muslim. Even if someone makes the argument from patriarchy: that Obama's paternal grandparents were his rightful guardians, that would fail since they also constructively abandoned him.

There is a corollary issue here: what about the fact that Obama's second father, the Indonesian, was a "non-practicing Muslim." Doesn't his faith transfer over to Obama? The answer is no. Under Islamic law, step-fathers do not acquire ownership over the child. Their relationship to the child emanates from their relationship to the child's mother. Again, Obama's mother was not Muslim. If a practicing Muslim man marries a Christian woman with children from a previous marriage, her children wouldn't automatically become Muslim. Here, the new father wasn't even practicing.

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. At the time of birth, Muslims engage in a symbolic act -- of saying the Call to Prayer in the child's ear -- that renders a child Muslim. If Obama's father was agnostic/atheist, then he wouldn't have done such a thing.

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.

Those who actually study Muslims see that there are millions of inter-religious marriages -- between Muslim men and Hindu women for example -- in which the children are being raised as pantheists, or even, Hindu. When these children grow up, they aren't killed for being apostates (though some Muslims do thumb their noses at the father for "allowing" his children to be raised non-Muslim).

By the way, Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, who has a Turkish grandfather, is often smeared the same way Obama is in Luttwack's article (see the picture at the bottom). In the case of the UK, the smears come from the ultra-right BNP party. Great to see that the New York Times has followed suit. I recommend that we begin calling the Islam smear what it really is: smearing immigrants.

Update: In light of some of the pernicious commentators below, I believe I have to assert that I do not believe any punishment for apostasy is le