Misconceptions About Obama and Islam

"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 legitimate, both Islamically and under a humanist perspective. The Quran actually assigns no earthly punishment for conversion from Islam. I have written in support of the apostate's right to convert from Islam at the Guardian, once in an article entitled Supporting Islam's Apostates and once indirectly at the end of another article at the Guardian. I have also written a short pamphlet which is intended to assist Muslims of conscience who'd like to defend others' right to convert. In fact, right here on Huffington Post, I have expressed my dissatisfaction with Islamic reforms that do not include freedom of conscience.

Fact is, with Obama, the issue has nothing to do with whether or not Muslims should believe in a punishment for apostasy (I assert they shouldn't), but whether it is dishonest to paint Obama as a Muslim. That is the essential point.

"Ibrahim Mahfouz":is this your true name???

The post to which u responded was mine and inadvertantly did not have my signiture.

1)U have not uttered a single word of truth in your post-in fact U went so far as to lie:the Gulf states and Sudan still have slavery??? The Sudanese who are black still have slaves!!!Why insult the sensibilities of the readers and the forum.U played completely blind and deaf to what I stated in my post and changed the subject by trying to sound like a scholar on Islam.

Why don't u look at your own faith:what is your faith?Jewish or right wing extremist Christian?
I suggest u look at your own religion and see the two big logs in bot your eyes.

Islam and Muslims did not commit the following shameful attrocities:

-The Crusaders initiated and implmented by the church;
-The Inquisition mainly on Spanish Muslims and also on jews;
-Mass forced conversion of the whole of South America;
-The holocaust of six million jews;
-The recent Genocide of European Slavic Bosnian Muslims;
- Ensalving millions of Africans and hording them accorss the Atlantic in chains to America and Europe;and forcing the "tolerant religion" of the massters,christianity,on those Africans who were in their majority Muslims.It is intersting that Islam is the faith of majority in Africa and is the fastest growing faith there to this moment-why should Africans embrace Islam in such great numbers if it is a faith of slavery?? Were the hateful and shameful apartheid regime in South Africa Muslim.

The nuclear holocaust of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in Heroshima and Nigasaki;
-Allied incendiary bombing of the German city of Dresedn wholly targeting Civilans;
-The destruction of the nation of Palestine and the murder,ethnic cleanesing,collective punishment of its people for past sixty years by the jews:and creating an apartheid state by Britain and Harry Truman-israel-when such state should have been established on German soil as a compensation for the holocaust;

What does your bible say about all of the above?? Tell US-will U.What did the Iraqis do to have Bush destroy their country? Did they travel thousands of miles accross the occan and attack America???

On Quran 9:29,which deals with Jizyah,the poll tax required of non-Muslims in lieu of military service-which no longer applies in modern times:

Jizyah in historical context of the 7th century AD(no longer applies) : الجزية
Jizyah is the second peaceful step in the process of Dawah(peaecful call to Islam)and it means the payment of a poll tax on every capable non-Muslim adult of military age who chooses to live in Muslim domains, accept its laws and is under its protection. 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 state; the logic for the exemption is sound, moral and just because it would be unfair to impose Qital(fighting in military service)for Dawah on non-Muslims who do not believe in that Dawah in the first place, otherwise they would have embraced Islam, a clear manifestation of respect for freedom of conscious.

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 as elaborated earlier. Muslim citizens of the same state had more demanding obligations: both military service and the payment of Zakat. This is an amount paid in kind or in gold of 2.5 percent on any kind of surplus wealth or savings if it is maintained for twelve months or if not then on the balance thereof. This is a Quranic ordained right for the Muslim poor to be paid by the Muslim rich if that surplus meets the Nisab, (نصاب), the financial criterion for the payment of Zakat-an amount at which level Zakat becomes due and payable to the poor thru the state public treasury and in turn paid to the poor. It is a built-in Muslim social security system that predates all modern social security systems. Charity is a voluntary endeavour outside Zakat.

The obligation of Zakat is the third pillar of Islam and is referred to a number of times in the Quran:

Al Baqarah,2:43,:” And be steadfast in prayer; practice Zakat (Alms, Charity); and bow down your heads with those who bow down-in prayers and worship.

Al Twabah, 9:103,:” Of their goods take alms, that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them; and pray on their behalf, verily thy prayers are a source of security for them; and Allah is one who heareth and knoweth.”

Al Layl, 92: 18,19,20,21,:” Those who spend their wealth for increase in self-purification,” “And have in their minds no favour from any one for which a reward is expected in return,” ” But only for desire to seek for the countenance of their Lord most high,” “ And soon will they attain complete satisfaction.”

Jaziyah applied only to able-bodied non-Muslim males of military age; the poor, the elderly, females, slaves and monks were exempted. It was essentially for commutation of the military service but more importantly of symbolic value, namely signifying the supremacy and sovereignty of Islam and the Muslim state-as any modern state.

In this context the Quran commands that the Muslim Faithful to fight the unbelievers not because of their unbelief but because of their refusal to allow the people living under their rule from receiving the message of Islam and then deciding freely whether to accept it or decline it and in case of those who decline it, they pay Jizyah as a sign of submission to laws and sovereignty of the Muslim state:

Al Tawabh,9:29,:” Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that what is forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of the truth, from among the people of the book, until they pay Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Occasionally the name was compromised, for example, during the reign of the third Caliph Omar, some Christian Arab tribes such as the famous tribe of Taglob (تغلب) contested not the payment of Jizyah but its symbolic name because they told the Caliph:” We are proud Arabs and it hurts our pride to pay Jizyah.” The Caliph agreed to their complaint and ordered that they be accommodated accordingly.

The justice of Islam is such that it would not force non-Muslims to participate in the military defence of the Dawah because they did not believe in it otherwise they would have converted to Islam which would transform them into such defenders; the majority of the subject populations actually embraced Islam and joined in lesser and greater Jihad to spread and protect the Dawah. For this reason, non-Muslims coming under the Muslim rule were exempted from military service in exchange for Jizyah or poll tax. Any time the Muslim state was unable to defend them, Jizyah payment ceased-as an example, when Muslims restored Syria from Byzantium but decided to make a tactical withdrawal form some of the conquered cities, they handed back the poll tax to the population-which demonstrated the fairness of Muslims and boosted their credibility, so that when the Muslims decisively defeated Byzantium and returned to these cities, the majority of population readily embraced Islam. The Jaziah system was very lenient and humane and many non-Muslims who were elderly or poor were exempted and actually received a monthly stipend form the new public treasury.

The main stream ISlamic scholar Dr.Yousef Qaradaqwi emphasized that Jizyah no longer applies because all citizens of a Muslim society pay taxes and serve in the armed forces and thus renders it obsolete.

REPLY TO Ted baines, who wrote:

"Your response is far superior to Daisy Khan's title blog. As usual neither Daisy nor Eboo will respond in an intelligent way because they know you are telling the truth. They will keep harping on the slavery and others discriminatory acts by White Christians." May 16, 2008 6:44 AM

Words of support are always welcomed! I see that, so far, the only other response to my (and your) comment, from "SK," is the pluperfect example of an ad hominem attack. (Duly reported as an offensive comment).

It is remarkable, isn't it, that a forum intended to foster debate and dialogue, the very people who are given the privilege of posting the original viewpoint--like Eboo Patel and Daisy Khan--never deign to reply to the resulting comments. Makes one conclude that the self-anointed opinion "elite" in this country--especially among Muslims--lives in a world where they have become accustomed to preaching to the choir, where the exchange is always one-sided and never encounters a dissenting voice. But as the Rev. Wright just proved, that creates a situation in which ultimate exposure reveals that you have built a house of cards that is unable to withstand the slightest critical breeze.

Sort of like a night-roaming vampire suddenly encountering the first rays of the morning sun.

I read with interest, Daisy Khan's article and tried to make sense of it. Let us all put in simple words.

One of the big problems of todays world is evanglist figthing evanglists. Now this is a deeper fight clothed by politically correct phrases; the real clash of civilizations.

It is somewhat like the Coke and Pepsi wars; on how many customers do you have and how many do I have.

THe solution can only be one. The right to convert can only be followed by the right to get converted; Islam cannot on one hand say that it has all rights to convert followers of other religions, without letting existing Muslims get converted to Christianity or become Jews/Hindus/Buddhists.

It can never be "That new converts from Christianity / Buddhism are welcome, but if my Muslim goes out of the fold, he deserves to be killed.

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...:)

Athena- The race card was thrown down by Obama's beloved Pastor. It didn't bring out the best in people of any color. And your sarcasm doesn't help heal the schism.

Wow... racist much, Miller?

Wow is right. All you religious freaks are too much. Easily distracted, it has a four cylinders and overhead cam.

Wow!!!

Notice that HUSSEIN has been keeping a low profile, but is very cocky about apparently winning the nomination for the Democratic Party.

He will not say or do anything that will endanger his opportunity.

MSM has STOPPED investigating his background, and does nothing to tell the Voter anything negative about OBAMA.

I wonder where he got the 180 MILLION Dollars that he has spent on his campaign so far.

Out of that he has spent 100 Million in advertising, buying the american voter.

BEWARE THE BLACK WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING. (The Black wolf will kill the flock.)

Hussein,

I thank you for bringing up the issue of abrogation. It is important. However, most contemporary Islamic jurists reject it as a legitimate form of hermeneutics. Why must we hold such a reductive and ahistorical view of Islam and Islamic law? As Ms. Khan brilliantly stated, just because extremists hold certain views, must we believe them? NO!!!!

Where in the Constitution does it state that the President must be a christian and can not be a muslim, jew, hindu or buddhist?

So many of these comments are so far off the wall, it would be laughable if not so sad. I doubt the majority of people assailing Ms. Khan know anything about Islam nor do they know any Muslims (not Moslems). Using Farrakhan as an example discredits anyone who wishes to discuss Islam. (Most people who use him as an example can't even site anything he's said or done in the past 15 or so years.)

To assume that Islamic extremists believe in this concept (Obama is an apostate) is to assume that they are all as naive and ignorant as those who wish to continue to believe that Obama was raised a Muslim.

If you haven't actually spoken to any Muslims, then you really don't have a leg to stand on with your arguments.

I was going to discuss god, Obama and the devil, but your advertisement for the 2009 Toyota Camrys caught my eye. Does that have a six or four cylinder engine?

Obama is god.

"I have never read such ignorance about someone who has two books out that gives his life story in all my life."

Please Terra,

Don't lap up any slop that is placed before you.. Try to question- just a little.

For instance:

(From Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention keynote address)

"Tonight is a particular honor for me because - let's face it - my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton's army, marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and later moved west all the way to Hawaii in search of opportunity.

And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents.

My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or "blessed," believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren't rich, because in a generous America you don't have to be rich to achieve your potential."

Check it out..

Barack Obama Sr. wasn't an immigrant- he was a foreign student. He acquired a bachelor's and master's degree in the U.S. and then- he returned to Kenya.

His parents "married" when his mother was three months pregnant. His father was already married to a Kenyan woman.

His mother- who was briefly married to an Indonesian man- chose to live most of the rest of her life in Indonesia ...

Remember-

"My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation."

Hardly..

Oh, I understand. We need to look at the violent words of the Koran in context like the racist words of Rev. Wright like the loving words of Jesus when they contradict Leviticus. How convenient that religions and their clergy can spew hate, calls to violence, exclusion and judgment of others and then just dismiss it all by saying we have to look at it in "context"

Truly Abraham was the first human manifestation of Satan on earth.

Anonymous says;
Observer, Ibrahim Mahfouz and the "un"-inquiring mind: U guys are not very inspiring-in fact u are boring because u keep playing and recycling the old naive game of taking bits of info out of its context without understanding it; just make some honest effort and read at least a full Chapter/Surah in Quran before u start shooting from the hip GW style.

I read your Quran many times and know that there are 124 verses that were reconciliatory towards the Christians, Jews and polytheists and included the oft quoted “No compulsion in religion”. Those were written in Mecca during the early ministry of Muhammad, when he was looking for followers. When he moved to Yathrib and his support among the people of that town increased, his attitude toward the “nonbelievers” changed dramatically. All those verses you quoted were abrogated by few later Medina verses such as the one below ( Quran 9:29)

“Fight those who believe not
In Allah nor the Last Day
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By Allah and His Apostle
Nor acknowledge the Religion
Of Truth(even if they are)
Of the People of the Book
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission
And feel themselves subdued”.

Deflecting accusations about intolerance of the Muslim religion by claiming that everybody else besides Muslims was involved in slave trade is plain hogwash. Slavery is practiced in Sudan and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states till this day. It was Arab Muslim traders who captured slaves and sold them to the European ship captains. Mohammed Ali, the Sultan of Egypt in the early 19th Century, was the most notorious slave trader the world has ever known. He invaded Sudan for the sole purpose of facilitating his thriving slave trade. Slave markets of Jedda and Omdurman are in use till this day.

Anon whomever you are,

The "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Islam based on history and current events:

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 death of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni /roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite 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.

I have never read such ignorance about someone who has two books out that gives his life story in all my life.

He was never a Muslim. His father had given up that religion before he even met Obama's Mother. His mother and white grand parents were not religious..and his step father an executive for an American oil company. He went to a Catholic school as well as a public school in Indonesia.

Barack Obama was not a Christian or anything else before he moved to Chicago and started working with the churches there...that is when he joined the Church there and found Christianity.

His mother was a remarkable woman and taught her son and daughter to care about all people and to respect all beliefs...and as she worked her way through colledge also taking care of her children, she taught her children the importance of education.

http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369

Small minds think small thoughts...

terra

Observor,Ibrahim Mahfouz and the "un"-inquiring mind:U guys are not very inspiring-in fact u are boring because u keep playing and recycling the old naive game of taking bits of info out of its context without understanding it;just make some honset effort and read at least a full Chapter/Surah in Quran before u start shooting from the hip GW style.

"No compulsion in religion" is only one many verses that form a pattern in the Quran that asserts the absolute freedom of conscious as a Core value of Islam. Take a look:

Al Baqarah, 2:256, :” Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error-falsehood: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold , that never breaks. And Allah hearth and knoweth all things.”

So if after all the peaceful invitation to Islam, some people including the people of the book still would not embrace Islam, then you have done your duty and God alone will judge them accordingly:

Al Nahal, 16:82,: “ But if they turn away, thy duty is only to preach the clear (compelling) message.”

Fatir, 35:23, :” Thou art no other than a Warner-Prophet or Messenger.”

Al Fath,48:8,:” We have sent thee as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings , and as Warner.”
لست عليهم بمسيطر."”
Al Ghashyah, 88:22,: ”Thou art not one to mange (to have tight grip on or control tightly) men’s affairs,??”
This means that the Prophet does not control the hearts of men or their inner most convictions, and therefore all is required of him is to sincerely call them to Islam to the best of his ability, the rest is their responsibility and is for Allah’s judgment.

The Quran commands the Prophet-and the faithful-to addresses the people of the book (jews and christians)kindly:
يا أهل ألكتاب تعالوا إلى كلمة سواء بينانا وبينكم" “
Ali Imran, 3:64:”Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship None but Allah(the very God of Abraham); That we associate No partners with Him (such as claiming to be the son of God); That we erect not From ourselves, Lords and patrons Other than Allah. If then they turn back, Say ye:” Bear witness that we (at least) Are Muslims (bowing To Allah’s Will.”

وجادلهم بالتي هي أحسن."”
Al Ankbout, 29:46,:” And dispute ye not with the people of the book, except with means better-than mere disputation-,unless it be those of them who inflict wrong –and injury- but say,:” We believe in the revelation which has come down to you ( The Bible, authentic and unaltered, in its original form as revealed to Moses and Jesus); our God is one : and it is to him we bow in Islam.”
" .والله بصير بالعباد عليك البلاغ وأن تولوا فأنما “
Ale Imran, 3:20,:” So if they dispute with thee, Say:” I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those that follow me.” And say to the People of the Book and to those who are unlearned: “Do ye –also- submit yourselves?” If they do, they are in right guidance, But if they turn their back, thy duty is to convey the Message; And in Allah ‘s sight are –all- his servants.” "

In the next two verses the Prophet is commanded to show the common grounds of belief between the Prophets from Abraham to Muhammad including the belief in the one and only God and the revelation and scripture:

Al Baqarah, 2: 136,:” Say ye: ”We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to Abraham, Ismail, Issac, Jacob, and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to –all- Prophets form their Lord: we make no difference (distinction) between one and another of them: and we bow in Islam.”

When you Islam bashers and haters read the Quran or any verese you must understand its context:for example,Qital or fighting is only sanctioned under two headings:
(1)To remove a barrier between Islam and People so they can practice their sacered right of Freedom of Conscious-to freely choose the faith they desire;this was the case in 7th century AD-but with modern communictaions now days Islam is accessible thou there are new types of barriers set up in face of ISlam:Islamophobia and politics of fear..etc Quran 9:5 referes specifically to the polythist Arabs who were persecuting the Prophet and his infant Muslim community in Mecca and preventing Muslims from practicing their faith-the verse applies to any group of people regardless of their faith who persecute or prevent Muslims or any other people from their right to Freedom of Conscious.

(2)Fighting is also sanctioned as in

Al Baqarah, 2:190, :”Fight in the cause of Aallah those who fight you but do not transgress limits for Allah loveth not transgressors.”

a)Self Defence and

b)To alleviate oppression that is come to the help of those oppressed or occupied-in modern terms to help such people attain their right to self-determiniantion regardless of their faith,color and geographt.

There is no slavery in Islam:there was salvery when Islam emerged every where and the Quran and the Prophet instituionalized a gradualistic mecahnism to abolish slavery rather than end it abrubtly and cause a civil war as the American civil war in which over 600,000 Americans were killed and untold destruction and cost incurred.

Only Europe and America had an institutionalized slavery and its resdiue lingers on even during the on going primaries.
Clearly Islam is absolutely color-blind:observe the annual color-blind Hajj at Mecca which even convinced Malcom X to revert to main stream Islam.The majority of the enslaved blacks transported in chains and shackels from Africa to America were Muslims-as is the majority of Africans today-a concrete testimony to a color blind Islam.

Honesty and integrity dictate that verses from the Quran be read in their own historic and contextual meaning and not mutilated for propaganda and Islam bashing purposes.

Well, here's the problem. No one can quite figure out what Obama was before he became a Christian in his 20's.

I mean, what's the big secret? It appears he won't tell; surely the press knows, and it won't tell.

But we're trying to make reasonable inferences.
Certainly if he has Moslem roots via his father and grandfather, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he has particularly warm feelings towards Islam - even if we can't figure out the truth about him.

So in a very dangerous world, made particularly dangerous by Moslem extremists, it is also not unreasonable to wonder whose side Obama is on - no matter what the scholars say. We're talking gut feelings here.

Mainstream Media: We Demand Barack Obama Be Vetted. Who is Barack Obama?

Mainstream media has failed the United States of America.
The media favoritism for Barack Obama and the lack of investigative journalism and simple truth reporting on Barack Obama is disturbing millions of Americans. It appears there are two realities: the Mainstream Media Barack Obama and the World Wide Web Barack Obama. The internet is on fire with mass amounts of articles, videos, blogs, photographs, and commentary that expose a very different version of Barack Obama than that which is mysteriously depicted in MSM on a continual basis. This contrast is forcing many Americans to ask: Who Is Barack Obama? MSM: We demand Barack Obama be vetted. Vetting a potential American president to inform voters is ethical journalism's responsibility---it is your role, and this trust between the News and the People has been betrayed.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents--Americans ask: Who Is Barack Obama?

wiki: Vetting: Broadly, vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Specifically, vetting often refers to performing a background check on someone before offering them employment.

Americans have many questions about Barack Obama that are not being answered. It has become a communal mission to try "to get the truth out about Barack Obama." Actually, if the news had covered Obama as business as usual, I doubt most people would have even looked him up so much. Here is a conglomeration of Barack Obama concerns which can easily be found ALL OVER the internet. I am not going to include every American concern, nor am I going to go into extreme detail, and I am not going to provide every link to every website because there are far too many. We Americans expect that responsible and ethical journalists with integrity will explore and verify or debunk these concerns and report on the truth. We Want The News. We demand Barack Obama be vetted. I want to give you an insider's look at what people are feverishly discussing about Barack Obama on the internet. Look up almost any thread on any political forum and you will see the questions being asked. Here is an example of a plea for investigation that is commonly found on the Internet, look at the images, and then read the posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003860/posts So many Americans have been forced to start blogs in an attempt to compensate for Obama biased news. There are plenty of YouTube videos made by Americans sharing this precise sentiment, and it deserves notice. Ignoring it is making it worse.

Also, of note: there has been extensive web scrubbing and mysterious disappearances of posts, blogs, and articles concerning Barack Obama and his ties. Also, established Obama dissent blogs are being hacked, and information is being destroyed. It has been rumored that bloggers, commentators, and pretty much anyone who attempt to question Barack Obama, including journalists, is immediately threatened or warned in some fashion. Actually, there are even stories of super delegates and caucus goers being threatened if they do not go for Barack Obama. Furthermore, anytime anyone questions Barack Obama and his associates, his affiliations, his judgment, or his entire HISTORY, someone jumps out and screams: McCarthyism! or Lies! or Racism! or Negativity! It is all a scheme toward censorship and oppression. That needs to stop. Right now. This is America and Americans have every right to know who their potential American President is. How dare anyone think otherwise? In light of this, copy and save the body of this article for future reference in case this article disappears from the internet.

Now, here is more on the Barack Obama internet firestorm:
http://investigatebarackobama.blogspot.com/

Obama is a liar . Everyone calls HRC a liar but they want to stay away from the truth...

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15

The free press is the only one who cares to dig into the details. I challenge all Obama supporters to read this article and think about it yourself.

Nicely put, Ms Khan, but during this election season, and with so much at stake, most Republicans wont be able to understand your lucid explanation of the changes that have taken place in Islam.

But,I urge you to keep trying as it is vastly important for the US to get over this fear of Islam.

Its an unreasonable fear fed by the media which understands next to nothing about this beautiful religion and its overwhelmingly fine people in the four corners of the world.

The issue is not who can win the battle of religions. The issue is that we stand on a vast precipice of change. Whether we go over the edge and committ mass suicide depends on cooler heads to provide explanations of the differences in religions and how we can sit down and talk together about facing the challenges of the future.

NOw is the time for the voice of reason, not fury and brimstone.

What are the facts of the issue? At one time, was Obama a practicing Muslim, or was he only a child when his step-father practiced?

Does anyone have any information on his personal religious history in this regard?

Sorry, this article was not clear. Obama is going to be considered an apostate because he used to be Muslim but now he's a Christian?Because I thought that he grew up atheist because his mother was an atheist. That's what I read in Time magazine when Barack was promoting his book. So is he apostate because his name is Muslim? Or did I miss the Al Qaeda video when little boy Barack was climbing the monkey bars while training for jihad. I definitely missed something here.

Stinkfinger Willie-

You must be a member of the FUB Club..

this woman is either naiive or just plain lying

A very shocking article in latest U.S. News & World report: Minorities just 2 percent live in constant fear and are openly discriminated. Conversion from Islam is punishable by death.

Talked about a case in mid 90s when a convert to Christianity was sentenced to death but a international campaign led by a Christian priest freed him but after 6 months both were found dead.

I understand that in Islam, a boy is not responsible for his religion or religous obligations until he reaches fifteen years old. So in order for Obama to be an apostate, he himself would have had to have accepted Islam after age fifteen, then reject afterwards. Since he never formally accepted Islam at any time after coming of age , he never became a Muslim, and therefore he is NOT a Muslim Apostate.

While US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads rival Hillary Clinton in the polls, Palestinians in Gaza are launching their own attempt to boost his campaign.

So- why does a young Palestinian living in Gaza spend so much time and money on an election happening thousands of miles away?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

And from The Times of London- May 10, 2008

"One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation."

The fact that nearly hundred percent of my Muslim - American family and friends support Senator Obama unequivocally is proof that his converting to Christianity is not an Issue amongst Muslims.
Indeed, if one were to poll my co - religionists in America, our universal support for Obama would be, equal, if not more than his following amongst the African-Americans.
Go Obama!

why's here hair showing? She is not muslim. by the way all her nice words about the koran have been "abrogated" by later verses that encourage the killing of apostates. the nice verses like "you have your religion and i have mine" are history and are no longer relevant. it has been abbrogated by the newer more lethal verse about killing apostates because islam is the relgion of the allah

Why should we "enhance relations" with the Muslim world when there is no reciprocity? The Muslim world demands that we alter our view of them, yet they reject any challenges to their own prejudice. Case in point: religious conversion. It is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to Christianity. Yet no protest is raised when it is the other way around. How can you justify this?

While Daisy Khan tries to whitewash Islam’s treatment of converts, she ignores that every Islamic country on earth forbids conversion from Islam to other faith and usually mandates death penalty for converts. Actions speak louder than the word. Witness how even Karzai’s so-called moderate Afghanistan had to declare an Afghan convert to Christianity as ‘insane’ to save him from death penalty and in addition to that deport him to Italy to save his life.

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 measured by 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, 11 and wounded 85

5) Bali-in 2002- 202 , 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 bombers.

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

8) UK bombings in 2005- 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic 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. (besides 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!!!

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 recently and also threatened South Korea with military action recently .

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. The terror against 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.

Whenever I post a comment on articles written by visible minority "commentators" my posts mysteriously disappear and then, to add insult to injury, they end up posting my complaints. Check out this. This complaint will go on the boards but NOT my original post.

These visble minority so-called "commentators" are useless. They cannot stand the heat of argument. I blame their inferiority complex.

The Terrorist They Call "president" Is The Enemy Of HUmanity!!!

In 2001, when the stupid, dumb Arab terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, WAS ACCUSED of doing what was really the work of the governments of America and Israel, that is bringing down the so-called "twin towers," the terrorist Americans call "president" said "America is NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with terrorists."

Boy, Oooooooooh boy, what a LIE!! The stinker was lying from all his orifices. Today, not only are stinking American Terrorists killing INNOCENT MUSLIMS (the numbers are in the millions of innocents,), these terrorists are also destroying WHOLE MUSLIM SOCIETIES!!

Somalia. (10,000 INNOCENTS DEAD. AT THE HANDS OF AMRICA. THE COUNTRY'S CAPITAL UTTERLY DESTROYED.

Afghanistan> (TENS OF THUSANDS OF INNOCENTS DEAD. THE COUNTRY DESTROYED.)

Iraq. (A MILLION INNOCENTS DEAD. TENS OF THOUSANDS TORTURED. SADDAM HUSEEIN, THE LEGIT PRESIDENT HANGED. THE COUNTRY AND ITS CAPITAL UTTERLY DESTROYED. BY WHOM? BY AMERICA.)

I can go on and on. But this is good enough to make my point. For what is all this destruction and mass murder? What did these people do to America? Why are their countries and societies destroyed? Can an American answer this question?

They have NOOOOOO answer. And this record is one of pure TERRORISM and GENOCIDE!! Who is responsible for this record? AMERICA!!

America. You stand accused of causing a Muslim Hollocaust!!!!

The Terrorist You call "president" personally DIRECTED THIS HOLLOCAUST. WILL YOU SURRENDER THIS TERRORIST TO THE WORLD HIGH COURT, AMERICA?????

The author is too focused on the scholarly interpretations of apostasy. The reality is that these nuances don't exist for a segment (a large one) of Muslims. I regularly see news reports from Islamic countries of death sentences being handed down for heresies much less severe than apostasy. So, even though there is diversity of thought, let's pay attention to those who are radical because it is they who seek to do us harm.

A point the author surprisingly missed is that Obama never did submit to Islam and therefore cannot be an apostate. His father was a Muslim, so under some interpretations, Obama (as a male) should be, but it's a real stretch to say he could be an apostate.

SK-

Sorry Sweetie- you need to wake-up.

Razor sounds like a legit Clintonite and is speaking for many voters. Obama's candidacy is hated by many life-long Democrats. You denigrate their beliefs when you call them "right-wing radicals" and say "I'm sure it will continue to not resonate with the thoughtful people."

Before its over- this election is liable to turn the Democrats into Humpty-Dumpty's party.

Of course Obama Hussein is not a Muslim...and Islam is a religion of peace; and a Muslim would never kill another Muslim; and please don't attack during Ramadan because Muslims never fight during Ramadan; nor do they continue to enslave people in Africa.

Ms Khan states in response to Edward Luttwak's recent op ed artle in the Times that "Simply because certain Muslims may offer distorted interpretations and present them as the “true Islam,” we are not compelled to accept these readings as representing all Muslims or Islam itself."
It is not sufficient to merely not be compellled to accept such celebrations of murder.
Will she state in print and on this website unequivocally that it is never permissible under any cicumstances to kill any person for alleged apostacy?
Will she actively solicit other muslims to publish such decarations as well?

the fact is that farrakhan has his own brand of islam and it is a combination of santa ria,christianity and islam. and for him to be running around with wright and spewing out all this stuff that has nothing to do with salvation could make a person think that obamas congregation will believe anything wright tells them,most of which is crap.

Muslim, Christian,Atheist, Barack Obama is free to call himself whatever he chooses, in my opinion. HOWEVER, this man wants to be the leader of our nation, the commander-in-chief of our military. He wants to set the standards,declare the treaties,instruct the Congress. That means he is campaigning for a huge gift from the American people for four years and we have every right to ask him personal questions.
#1.You belonged to Rev.Wright's anti-American church and listened to his hate-America talk for years. Clearly your wife is Anti-American by her speeches. Why do you ask for the Oval Office in light of your family's attitudes? HOW AMERICAN ARE YOU? The American people are watching.

Barack Obama has done nothing as Senator, the 13th ward is still a mess. He got a free ride from when he was a kid, to becoming a Senator, to now.
Hillary spent most of her life working for this.
Obama has never earned anything. He should have to earn it.
Barack Obama is Elmer Gantry. His style is to strut right in & steal the credits from true accomplishers,& call it his accomplishments, he will plaigarize words from original authors, & call them his own, He will steal Hillary Clinton's policies & ideas & call them his own, he will steal the thunder of people that suffered through the Civil Rights Movement, & even claim that he was there helping MLK, until someone actually has the guts to tell him that was impossible, so then he will say he did not mean it like that.

He has never accomplished 1 thing. But thanks to Emil Jones Jr, the accomplishments of others who worked so hard for them, got stolen right out from under them & given to Barry Obama.

Obama is a big liar, hypocrite and egomaniac, who smoked crack, his wife is a racist, his pastor, mentor and close friend is a racist that gave a good person award to Louis Farrakhan and he
spent 20 years in that church denying he knew what the Pastor preached, he was friends and did business for 17 years with Tony Rezko, a Syrian criminal slumlord (now in jail), whocaused poor
people to live in squalor on the south side of Chicago, & freeze without heat in the dead of winter, but at first he denied this, and
said he knew him for 5 months..

Obama lied and said he did something about the Exelon nuclear dumping that contaminated the drinking water in Illinois.

He denies he received campaign funding from Saddam Hussein terrorist funder, Nadmi Auchi, he received campaign funding from Rashid Khalid, a Pakistani terrorist,

He has close ties to Edward Said--plagiarist, fabricator, and prominent PLO/Arafat adviser, Ali Abunimah, Palestinian activist and Islamics, and are among many other Middle Eastern terrorist supporters, along with his ties with anti-American socialists, the Weathermen.

The GOP is just waiting to vet this guy. It is hard to believe that anyone thinks he is electable, with all this info at our fingertips
Why isn't the media talking about all of Barack Obama's scary friends who have ties to the worst people in history?
*Obama's first cousin and close friend, Raila Odinga, a terrorist, mass murderer, just became co-President of Kenya (after having 1,000 people killed with machetes and burning down a church full of children.
He also signed a secret pact with Muslim jihadists who were to ethnically cleanse people?
And why does Raila Odinga use Obama's exact same campaign slogan: CHANGE....Vote for CHANGE: Look at his website:

http://www.raila07.com/

Would you support a white candidate that went to a white supremacy (KKK)church, for 20 years no less, and called a pastor like Tom Metzger or David Duke your mentor and spiritual adviser?

If Obama wins the nomination, then Hillary should switch her party to Independent or create a new party called the Common Sense party or Centrist party, or I will write her name in on the ballot.
If she does not win, I really no longer want to be a Democrat. I do not want Barack Obama & his racist, dumb wife, representing my party. I also do not like the betrayal some other Democrats have shown towards Hillary. I can honestly say that it just makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.

If Obama wins the nomination, then Hillary should switch her party to Independent or create a new party called the Common Sense party or Centrist party. If she does not win,
I no longer want to be a Democrat. I do not want Barack Obama or his racist wife representing my party. I also do not like the betrayal some other Democrats have shown towards Hillary.
I can honestly say that it just makes me ashamed to be a Democrat.
I don't trust him, his wife, past friends and shady dealings. None of my family or friends will vote for him either, they would rather vote for McCain.

Hillary should never support a man like this. He has schemed his way into this contest, thanks to David Axelrod aka Hitler, like he did back in Chicago, he has flipped Hillary off after he looked so dumb after the last debate in PA. He has spread false rumors about her. He has no original ideas of his own, he can only wait for Hillary to answer questions first in debates so he can copy her, or state her plans, so he can copy them. He is so jealous of Hillary. He is not a uniter, he is a divider. He is unelectable, and if they ever did let him have the keys to the White House, this would be end of the U.S of A empire, because our enemies will nuke Israel. If he is not the anti-christ, then he is very close to it. He is another Hitler. If a white man that belonged to a White supremacy KKK church ran for President, noone would vote for him, and Jeremiah Wright is exactly like that, only Black Power instead of White Power. His supporters like to use the race card, I can just say, that if Obama would run against Colin Powell, I would rather pick Colin Powell even if he a Republican.
The media has given Obama a free pass, and it has all been unfair. I don't trust this slimeb*ll man.
In November, I will vote for Hillary even if I have to write her name on the ballot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqu3u9ISctA&feature=related

There is phone banks all over the Middle East in support of Barack Obama. Why do you think that is?
He is known to support Hamas, in he just fired someone on his campaign because it was revealed that he was going to Hamas meeting.
Rob Malley, Barack Obama's campaign, Middle East advisor,who has ties to Hamas resigned last Friday after a newspaper reported on his regular meetings with members of the Hamas militant group.
________
People sometimes say I am being a racist when I say this, but Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is not African-American.

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.

It also matters because it is just another lie that Obama tells about his past. It is almost like he is a pathological liar with his "na na na" answer when people ask him questions such as his association with the slum landlord, Antoin Rezko.

During a debate, Obama said, "Na, na, na," I only did about five hours work for Rezko." His answer was so spontaneous, that it does make him look like a pathological liar. It is almost as if he believes his own lies.

He also said, "na, na, na" when asked about attending the radical separatist church, The Trinity, Rev. Wright officiating. He spontaneously told reporters, "na, na, na, I have been going to the same Christian Church for 20 years."

Hillary Clinton got whacked by the media and the Obama/Axelrod bunch when she embellished her Bosnia story, but Obama gets a free ride and kid glove treatment when he repeatedly lies about important things.

Another reason Obama's ARAB father makes a difference is because Obama called his Arab father a "freedom fighter," where he was really a member of a terrorist group called Kenyatta.

Obama also went to Kenya in August 2007, to campaign for his cousin, Odinga, who lost that election. Odinga made a contract with a group that burned down Christian Churches with people in them and macheted people in the streets. A thousand people lost their lives.

Obama may be as clean as the driven snow, but it sure doesn't look like it.

He scares the heck out of me. gw.

A very fine responsible opposing view.

I can't speak for others, however I'm a bit dubious re Mr. Luttwak's Muslim credentials. Having served in numerous Muslim lands, I don't recall the surname "Luttwak" being associated with Islam. I conclude it and Mr. Luttwak may be something else. Can anyone else comment?

Nuance, changed circumstance, lack of uniformity, absence of muslim law... What a high minded absurdity! The world looked at MASSIVE demonstrations (with human casualties) through muslim countries and muslim communities in Europe against journal cartoons, against Jews digging under Al Aksa (when the dig was substantially away from the site). Nuances? The religion has not modernized in almost a thousand years and the consequences are not felt inside religious schools or mosks, but on streets of muslim countries and western countries when muslims migrate or emigrate.

What a Trojan horse this author is!

Nuance, changed circumstance, lack of uniformity, absence of muslim law... What a high minded absurdity! The world looked at MASSIVE demonstrations (with human casualties) through muslim countries and muslim communities in Europe against journal cartoons, against Jews digging under Al Aksa (when the dig was substantially away from the site). Nuances? The religion has not modernized in almost a thousand years and the consequences are not felt inside religious schools or mosks, but on streets of muslim countries and western countries when muslims migrate or emigrate.

What a Trojan horse this author is!

The problem with your rebuttal of Edward Luttwak's article is you lack to acknowledge the threat from the Islamic world is not from those who are more tolerant in their view of apostates, but from the "radical Islamic" factions. While there well maybe those who are not going to be giving notice to Obama's religious conversion to Christianity, those who are already opposed to the Western culture and the US will use Obama as one more claim to validate their hatred towards the US. Especially, if he is elected as president. Should this matter? Normally, no. The US should not worry about what other nations think about who we choose to be our president, however the concern is not Obama's conversion and a treat to the US from Islam for that sole reason, it is "Who is Obama"? Obama has yet to establish himself as an American first. His support for anti-american religious ratings of his "Christian" minister, his support for radical Islamic leaders (Farkan) is more of a worry to be considered by the US citizens who will choose the next president of the USA.

Nuance, changed circumstance, lack of uniformity, absence of muslim law... What a high minded absurdity! The world looked at MASSIVE demonstrations (with human casualties) through muslim countries and muslim communities in Europe against journal cartoons, against Jews digging under Al Aksa (when the dig was substantially away from the site). Nuances? The religion has not modernized in almost a thousand years and the consequences are not felt inside religious schools or mosks, but on streets of muslim countries and western countries when muslims migrate or emigrate.

What a Trojan horse this author is!

I read the original Luttwack piece. In my opinion, its intent was to again FALSELY portray Obama as a Muslim - because his father was at one time a Muslim and that would, according to Lutwack, make Obama a Muslim in the eyes of the Muslim world - with much camouflage and persiflage about how this would present particular dangers which would not attend the other candidates.

I noted that Luttwack said, in his poorly-researched piece, that Obama "converted" to Christianity. Would one say someone "converted" to Christianity if that person had not been a member of any faith before joining a church? Which is exactly what Obama did as an adult, after having been raised unchurched. "Conversion" implies a from-to relationship, and for Obama there was no "from", as he was not a member of any religion/faith before he decided to become a member of the United Church of Christ.

Asim says:
"the quran says "there is no compulsion in religion".
This is not the first ime he quotes that verse, and that is not the first time I counter that the above verse was abrogated; cancelled by later verses including (Quran 9:5,29)which openly incite against those who do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad. Apparently this person and his ilk work on the principle that if a claim is made enough times it becomes true, even if they know it is not true. Well here another Muslim principle kicks in called "Taqiyyah" which makes (halal) or allowable to lie if that promotes the cause of Islam.

Eboo Patel and Daisy Khan need to be religiously "defemed" as a matter of keeping "truth in advertising".

The "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of Islam:

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.

Nuance, changed circumstance, lack of uniformity, absence of muslim law... What a high minded absurdity! The world looked at MASSIVE demonstrations (with human casualties) through muslim countries and muslim communities in Europe against journal cartoons, against Jews digging under Al Aksa (when the dig was substantially away from the site). Nuances? The religion has not modernized in almost a thousand years and the consequences are not felt inside religious schools or mosks, but on streets of muslim countries and western countries when muslims migrate or emigrate.

What a Trojan horse this author is!

Nuance, changed circumstance, lack of uniformity, absence of muslim law... What a high minded absurdity! The world looked at MASSIVE demonstrations (with human casualties) through muslim countries and muslim communities in Europe against journal cartoons, against Jews digging under Al Aksa (when the dig was substantially away from the site). Nuances? The religion has not modernized in almost a thousand years and the consequences are not felt inside religious schools or mosks, but on streets of muslim countries and western countries when muslims migrate or emigrate.

What a Trojan horse this author is!

You're article sounds nice, but the reality is that even today most Muslims, although peace loving, condone capital punishment for leaving Islam. I work in the Middle East and I've seen a few Al-Jazeera phone in surveys asking this very question. The majority of people voted for executing an apostate, and since all the children of a Muslim man are born Muslim, then Barack Obama is an apostate whether we like it or not. Most Muslims take their world view from the Qu'ran and the Hadith, not from western scholars.

To Muslims, executing an apostate is not an issue and never was an issue. This is because the principle is enshrined in the Sharia law, was practiced by their prophet and his successors who waged full fledged wars against the “apostate” tribes. Quran 9:11,12 states

“But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you ;renouncing Islam after accepting it) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief -- Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist.”

Some Muslims living in the West, such as Ms Khan, are ashamed of this practice, as they should be, and try to plant the seeds of doubt about the authenticity of the practice by flooding us with doubletalk of the type this jurist said this and that jurist believed that. The persecution of “apostates” is taking place all around the Muslim countries yet we never heard any of those jurist listed by Khan or anyone else ever voiced a dissention.

When the Rev. Wright went to the press club to affirm his racist and hateful preaching who was there to gaurd him? Yes. It was Farakhan's anti-semite group The Nation of Islam guarding this so-called Christian preacher who preaches sermons that sound more like something you might hear in a Mosque in Iran than in a Chrsitian church here in America.

Connect the dots.

"There is as great a distance between different Muslim groups"

This is true. The group most afflicted, terrorized and abused by Muslims is "other Muslims". There is a world-wide pandemic of Muslim against Muslim violence- including Muslims bombing Mosques, family members maiming and killing each other, light-skinned Muslims committing genocide on their darker-skinned co-religionists...

The question to ask Daisy is why doesn't she defend her co-religionists? Why is she not sheltering her fellow Muslims in Darfur or creating safe houses for the potential victims of honour killings?

Why are the "other Muslims' we read about suffering and losing their lives daily- so dispensable to the "main-stream" "moderate" Muslim? Why no outrage in the streets like the Danish cartoons provoked?

As a UCC clergyperson I have NO doubt that Obama is a Christian...he clearly has been a part of Trinity UCC for quite some time. HOWEVER, that's not what I think we should be asking! I think we should be asking what does Obama believe as a Christian. Apparently he believes its okay to belong to a church that affirms Farrakhan (a person who express homophobia and anti-semeticism). He also believes its okay to attend church rarely enough as to not know what kind of messages his pastor preaches. And apparently he believes its OK as a Christian to refer to strange women as "sweetie!"

There is as great a distance between different Muslim groups as there is between different Christian groups.

We cannot let ourselves fall into the Republican trap of hating Muslims or any specific race for that matter. Since when have all Muslims become America’s enemy? When will we stop allowing haters like Pat Buchannan, Bill Kristol and Rush Limbaugh etc to drive racial stakes into America’s heart? The Muslims as a people have not harmed America. Radicals who come from all races attacked America.

The Republicans have been using hate and race bating to gain and stay in power long enough. It is time for America to stand up against these ruffians and say enough is enough. It is time for Republicans to rule through wit not fear. I don’t think they can do it. END THE WAR IN IRAQ.

GeorgiaSon

Your response is far superior to Daisy Khan's title blog. As usual neither Daisy nor Eboo will respond in an intelligent way because they know you are telling the truth. They will keep harping on the slavery and others discriminatory acts by White Christians.

Ms. Khan has turned to the usual obfuscation engaged in by Muslims called on to explain some of the more dire requirements and practices of their religion. It’s not, she assures us, what has been going on in Muslim countries for several millennia. It’s not the lack of religious freedom, civil liberties, freedom of expression, or democracy that counts. Oh, no. In order to really understand Islam, one must peruse the whole corpus of Muslim law turned out over the past 1500 years or so. Read the writings of some Islamic scholar at Al Azhar University in Cairo, seconded by a professor in Timbuctu, and you will find that they have explained the real meaning of Islam. Once you have finished this detailed examination of Islamic thought and law, you will discover that Islam is really a kind, compassionate, and moderate religion. Muslim extremists, you will discover, are no more the exclusive embodiment of Islam than the Religious Right is of Christianity.

At which point I have to offer my Southern-fried perspective: Only a tiny number of Americans who ever lived ever owned slaves. Ergo, why make such a big deal of the role of slavery in American history? In fact, an even less number of Americans ever participated in the lynching of a black man. Ergo, why do some people insist on harping on lynching?

I would think that the empirical history of Muslim countries and their current religious, legal and social practices would tell us all we need to know about modern Islam, not some hike through the weeds of Islamic jurisprudence.

It’s time to offer once more my standard questions about Islam, knowing that neither Ms. Khan nor any other Muslim will dare try to answer 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.

Apparently Indonesians are thrilled about Obama's prospect of becoming the next president of the US. They feel a special bond to him because he attended school a couple of years in Indonesia. They do not consider him a Muslim or an Apostate.

Obama would be a big boon to relations with Muslim countries precisely because his father was a Muslim even if he is not one. Imams would know better than to issue a fatwa to the President of the United States if Obama is elected.

(Side note: the practices Christians in Africa call 'Witchcraft' have nothing to do with my religion, but it turns out some folks don't care much about such distinctions.

Not that I've got any problem with Evangelicals taking notice of human trafficking. Gods know it's been an outstanding issue an awful long time when y'all were busy gunning for *my* civil rights.

Actually, ...Know what it's like to have someone corner you and describe that particular implementation of used tired to you, in person, right here in America?? They think it's a 'Christian Nation,' too.

"And BTW-

Witches ARE being put to death in the world today.

HINT: Not by xtians"

Correct on one,

Totally missing out on half a continent on two.

Trust me, people have suggested I get the same sort of Michellin treatment right here as there.

Arminius-

To further clarify please read:

"Once nearly wiped out, slavery in Sudan has sprung back to life in the 1990s amid the chaos of an intractable civil war. The victims are black Christians and animists; the slave traders who raid southern villages are Muslim Arabs, whose racial and religious kin control the central government in Khartoum. Journalists and human-rights groups have documented the resurgence of slavery in Sudan, but that has done nothing to reverse the trend. Now a new humanitarian movement is attacking the problem frontally--by buying the slaves' freedom."

Marcus Mabry
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:05 PM ET Jan 9, 2008

Arminius asks:

"Did I miss something?"

Daisy Khan's thread topic is MUSLIM.

Inquiring Mind:

Well and good, do expose slavery today. It exists today in places in the Mideast and Africa in its traditional form. It also exists today in many other parts of the world, disguised as business.

My reply about looking into the OT was prompted by your quoting Islam texts. You did not seem to relate that to today. Did I miss something?

Sorry Arminius-

I'll spend my time exposing the slave trade as it exists today rather than pretend its a past evil. Millions of people (many still children) are enduring intolerable abuse and suffering in silence with no means to gain freedom.

Inquiring Mind:

Well, I suggest you use your inquiring mind to check out how the Old Testament treats the subject of slavery.

Asim-

What does the Koran say about "shameful SLAVARY"?

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

Muslims believe that taking slaves in war is a God-given right? These slaves are 'booty'?

23:5 - "... except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them:..."

Muslim males are allowed to have sex with their wives AND slave girls?

What do you mean when you say- "shameful SLAVARY"?

Daisy,
Clearly,Luttwak's objective is to attack Islam and Muslims using Obama as a medium and a tool.
The harmony in US-Muslim realtions is not one his priority.

Any new President would be a quantum leap improvement over the cluless GW.

The Quran is unequivoacal about the freedom of conscious:"No compulsion in religion." Shariah punishes not for the act of apoastacy itself but for an apostate to incite and foment strife and sedition in a Muslim Community.

Am voting for Obama on his own merits-besides helping America to cleanese its soul from the residue of the shameful chapter of SLAVARY.

Anonymous, you blathered to Paganplace:

"So. You're a prejudiced Pagan who hates xtians and loves anti-xtians"

Horse poop. Paganplace and I are well acquainted here, and have mutual respect. I consider her a friend. I am Christian.

What planet do you live on?

"Since I'm the one generally accused of being able to read minds"

Umm- I'm not sure you can read your own mind. Start by reading your own posts-

"I don't suppose you wouldn't mind rescinding your Christian "Thou shalt not suffer (whomever you feel like calling) a Witch to live?"

So. You're a prejudiced Pagan who hates xtians and loves anti-xtians.

I'm only anonymous..

And BTW-

Witches ARE being put to death in the world today.

HINT: Not by xtians

Or... Since I'm the one generally accused of being able to read minds, ...you could pick a name before pronouncing judgment on

Mickey Mouse would do. Any name.

Not hard.

Really.

Hey Pagan-

I'll pick a name when you quit accusing your "preferred believers to hate" of persecuting witches (something they no longer practice) while defending your "preferred believers to love" who are persecuting witches daily..

Hint, btw, 'Anonymous,' ...if you want people to correctly guess your religion, well, start by picking a name. :)

Thank you for bringing some intelligence and expertise to the issue. We need more of this and less demagoguery, as Americans seem inclined to "group think", perpetuated, I'm sorry to say, by mainstream media which seem to have become the mouthpiece for the establishment.
What ever happened to independent journalism?

Anonymous:

"Hey Pagan-

Why not take your prejudiced @ss to the Kingdom."

Cause last time I was born, this was still *America?*

Hey Pagan-

Why not take your prejudiced @ss to the Kingdom.

I'm NOT xtian.

"MAKKAH, 14 May 2008 — The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice arrested two Nigerian nationals on charges of practicing sorcery in the Mansura district of Makkah yesterday.

Zainab, 37, and Nufa, 16, confessed that they claimed to have the power to break up relationships and make people impotent, Ahmad Al-Ghamdi, the commission’s director in Makkah, told Arab News. Nuha is the youngest witch to be caught ever by the commission in the Kingdom.

After receiving several complaints, the commission on Saturday sent a woman to the two Nigerians to request their help to foil her husband’s plan to marry a second time. The duo demanded SR,3000 in remuneration from the woman, who paid an advance of SR1,000.

The next night, the two Nigerians arrived at the woman’s apartment and started their magical rites and incantations. As the act progressed, waiting commission members entered the apartment and arrested them.

Meanwhile, members of the commission’s Jeddah branch detained a Saudi practitioner of witchcraft from the Jamiah district of the city. The man used to tell his clients that he knew a magic trick to make and break relationships. In a raid at the man’s home, commission members discovered paraphernalia used in witchcraft. The man was handed into police custody."

Oh, really, brave Anonymous?

" Anonymous:

"had (Daisy) admitted that death is the punishment for apostasy, that the Koran preaches death for apostasy , that Muhammad had Muslims killed for apostasy but that all this is wrong and was wrong and that going forward Muslims will reverse these laws and make it allowable for Muslims to leave Islam if they wish."

I don't suppose you wouldn't mind rescinding your Christian "Thou shalt not suffer (whomever you feel like calling) a Witch to live?"

It's not like I'm opposed to carrying firearms, or can't handle one, ...it's just a serious imposition I should feel I have to just on your say-so.

"had (Daisy) admitted that death is the punishment for apostasy, that the Koran preaches death for apostasy , that Muhammad had Muslims killed for apostasy but that all this is wrong and was wrong and that going forward Muslims will reverse these laws and make it allowable for Muslims to leave Islam if they wish."

O Ted-

Daisy can't do that.. If she did- she'd be an apostate and under Islamic law.. well- you get it. Its better for her to apply a little taqiyya and kitman.

You are unconvincing like many other Muslims because you refuse to admit that the punish for apostasy in Islam is death. There is no evidence in the case of Obama that he was not made to take the shahada or the Muslim oath of allegiance to Islam. Almost all children of Muslim parents have to take this oath and these children are subject to death if they become apostates at any time in their lives.

You would have been more credible and would have earned our respect had you admitted that death is the punishment for apostasy, that the Koran preaches death for apostasy , that Muhammad had Muslims killed for apostasy but that all this is wrong and was wrong and that going forward Muslims will reverse these laws and make it allowable for Muslims to leave Islam if they wish.

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.

(Abu Qilaba said, "Those were the people who committed theft and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle").

And Daisy:

What is the difference between "Murtad Fitri" and "Murtad Milli"??

Daisy

Maybe you will explain the meaning of two expressions-

1- What is an "honour killing"?

2- Why are new believers known as "reverts"?

As a born and raised Saudi Muslim, I agree with all those who said that Islam is not handed down from father to son (or mother for that matter). Of course, any good Muslim will try to raise their children as Muslim, but once the children reach puberty, they are responsible for themselves. IF Obama says he was never a Muslim, then why is this an issue??!
I can guarntee every American that Saudis have no prejudice against Obama. I certainly won't encourage any American Muslim to vote for Obama on the basis that his father was a Muslim.
I think anyone who has interest in electing someone other than Obama may use this issue (or any other issues they can find) to sway people awaya from voting for him.
It is all about politics and not religion.

Sari:

Please check your information.

Islam is NOT an ethnic or genetic identity, period. It cannot be "passed down" by mother OR father in that sense at all.

Parents can raise their children in the Islamic tradition but they are either Muslims or not based on what choice they make with regards to remaining in the faith once they are older. This is the only sense that the religious identity can be "passed" or "handed" down. Which is to say that belief and practice can be *taught* to ones children, and what they choose to do with it later in life determines whether or not they are Muslim.

You have to actually *accept* Islam before you can apostate. You have to do so as an adult of sound mind. Whether a person converts to Islam after having been raised in another tradition, or simply affirms the belief/practice that they have grown up with once they are of age--only in these cases is a person Muslim. It makes no difference whatever the religious belief or lack thereof of their parents, grandparents, or further ancestors on either side of the family. Minor children raised in Muslim households obviously are considered Muslims in a sense, but under Islamic law they do not have religious obligations or responsibilities before God until they are of age.

" Sari:

Actually, in Islamic tradition, religion is passed down through the father, whereas in Jewish tradition, religion is passed down through the mother. Thus, to many Muslims, Obama is a Muslim because his father is a Muslim. Regardless of what religion he "chooses," he always is and always will be a Muslim."

Nonsense. If you bothered to fact-check, his father didn't pass down nothing, even if that mattered.

Actually, in Islamic tradition, religion is passed down through the father, whereas in Jewish tradition, religion is passed down through the mother. Thus, to many Muslims, Obama is a Muslim because his father is a Muslim. Regardless of what religion he "chooses," he always is and always will be a Muslim.

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.

What Ms. Khan fails to realize is that many Muslim states and Muslim officials in Muslim states lack her knowledge of the historical context of the Koran. They do not do text-in-context analysis, but prefer a literal interpretation of the text and prioritize selective texts over others. Some Muslim communities (aka the Wahabi and Salafi communities) do not value the jurist tradition. Many officials may have memorized the Koran in Arabic, but how many have sat down and really studied fiqh with progressive scholars?

This may be a problem for Obama and I do not believe that Luttwak is racist for pointing it out. I think Obama can be a bridge to Muslim communities, but he will have to find a way to deal with the issue, should it come up, especially in dealing with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Those who do not like him in the Muslim world can pull out the murtad card. It may have some resonance and not just among the radical fringe.

Is he an apostate in the view of the Saudi Government?

What would be the economic and foreign policy implications of that?

Is Luttwak insisting that we cave to radical Islam? A Muslim convert to Christianity in the White House would be a great boost to moderate Islam and a devastating blow to the radicals. Or is Luttwak worried that Osama Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad would refuse to meet with him?

Rich:

Islamic tradition does not mirror Judaism on this point, for a very important reason. Islam does not have a concept of religious identity being "handed down" at all, at least not in the sense that Judaism sees it.

One is not a Muslim on the basis of the Islam of one's parents, whether the mother or father. One is Muslim by conscious choice once a person becomes morally responsible. While it is certainly true that parents are encouraged to teach their children and bring them up as Muslims, and indeed most do to some extent, it's what the person chooses to do once they are older that actually is the determining factor.

It is irrelevant under Islamic law if ones paternal or maternal ancestors have been Muslims for centuries going back, if the person decides that they'd rather be something else.

As it related to Senator Obama, he has never been Muslim by any definition. According to what he wrote about his father, the man had left Islam prior to having met the Senator's mother. He was not raised as a Muslim and has never, to my knowledge, professed Islam at any time in his adult life.

The born agains are doing it again...trying to boil down the tenents of a religion to bullet points on a PowerPoint slide. The problem is that this time, its not even their religion they are trying to dumb down for mass consumption on the Fox network and through the main stream media that daily gives John McBush a pass.

racists

His life story is pretty interesting, actually, Candide. His father wasn't particularly observant at the time, himself, if I remember correctly, but regardless, he was raised as an American.

It is true that Muslim men may marry Christian or Jewish women but their children must be raised as Muslims. Was Obama raised as a Muslim? There is no evidence of this. According to Islam he should have been raised a Muslim but his father was rather lax about religion in any case.

Luttwack is a notorious neocon and member of the Israel Lobby.

I was under the impression the Muslim tradition mirrored the Jewish tradition, where in a mixed marriage the religious identity is handed down by the mother, not the father (or perhaps more accurately, the father suffers no sanction for the decision not to force the religious issue). If so, no muslim would think twice about Obama having been brought up a Christian by his Christian mother...