President Apostate?

[maximdewinter]

From the Op-Ed page of the New York Times a revelation about the potential problem of having a president who has renounced Islam:



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/op...ml?ref=opinion


".....Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive)...."



"— another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House."

[Jack]

An interesting situation, and one I haven't heard discussed.

If having a self-confessed Christian in the White House didn't give the Muslims enough reason to resent our presence in their countries, I can only imagine what their reaction will be to an apostate Muslim (in their opinion) as president of the U.S.

Our foreign relations and our ability to provide security for the president could both be severely compromised.

But let's face it. Muslims aren't going to be real pleased to have to deal with a woman president either. So it would seem that unless the U.S. sticks with a Republican president in the next election, we face the possibility of pissing off vast segments of the Middle East.

Am I concerned that they'll be uncomfortable or even angry? Not a bit. Am I concerned that they could use this as an excuse to ramp up their attacks on the U.S. and our allies, you bet. Should a Democrat be elected, we'll have even more impetus to reach a decision on how we intend to deal with radical Muslims. Until we devise a comprehensive plan, they'll continue to create paranoia within our country and be free to plot further attacks.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Jack But let's face it. Muslims aren't going to be real pleased to have to deal with a woman president either. So it would seem that unless the U.S. sticks with a Republican president in the next election, we face the possibility of pissing off vast segments of the Middle East.

And given the options for the Republican candidates, I don't even think *THAT* will work...

WE"RE DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/panic

[Jack]

They may object to McCain as well (in fact I'm sure they will if for no better reason than that he would be president of the "Great Satan), but it won't be the immediate knee-jerk reaction they'd have to either a woman or former Muslim (again, in their opinion).

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Jack An interesting situation, and one I haven't heard discussed.

I was really surprised to see it in the NY Times. It caused a hubbub in their online COMMENTS from around the world. Obviously it is just a "scenario",or maybe a great plot for Jack Bauer in the next season of 24 ("Dammit Bill, get me that cylinder or they're going to behead the president on youtube!) but an unlikely event. However, if you told me that cartoons of you-know-who in a Danish newspaper was going to cause riots and deaths around the world I would have told you that that too was an unlikely event.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Jack They may object to McCain as well (in fact I'm sure they will if for no better reason than that he would be president of the "Great Satan), but it won't be the immediate knee-jerk reaction they'd have to either a woman or former Muslim (again, in their opinion).

Exaclty, there's just no pleasing some people.


I'd be content killing the policies that allow US corporations to rape the mineral wealth of the Third World, and then we'll deal with the ones who are not content with a fair playing field. Those will be your true enemies.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Exaclty, there's just no pleasing some people. I'd be content killing the policies that allow US corporations to rape the mineral wealth of the Third World, and then we'll deal with the ones who are not content with a fair playing field. Those will be your true enemies.

Wow, I think this may be a sign of the comming Apocalypse. I agree with a sentiment expressed by Milton Bradley.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Wow, I think this may be a sign of the comming Apocalypse. I agree with a sentiment expressed by Milton Bradley.

Yet a fair playing field here at home is out of the question.


If only irony was a commodity that could be marketed.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yet a fair playing field here at home is out of the question. If only irony was a commodity that could be marketed.

Whew! The end of the world is not at hand. The irony is that you accuse me of not wanting a fair playing field. I could argue that being against public education means you advocate for a system that keeps the field unlevel. But that would be a topic for a differnt thread.

[SoylentGreen]

Jack Muslims aren't going to be real pleased to have to deal with a woman president either.

(Jumps up and down, waving hands) Hey remember us, the rest of the world.
Especially the countries like England and New Zealand that have actually already had or have women as leaders of the country. They manage to do diplomatic tours of middle eastern countries without pissing them off. It's being an AMERICAN president that's going to piss them off not the sex of the president.

[Jack]

I said that aware of the fact that other countries have had female heads of state. Most of them are and have been able politicians. But the Middle East's argument right now is with the U.S. They already don't like us and think they are in a position to exercise control, mostly due to oil and investments. They have us dependent and afraid. We're like junkies in their eyes. Now we're going to force them to deal with either a military veteran, a woman or an apostate Muslim as our leader. Is there any reason to expect a good outcome, at least in the near future?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Jack I said that aware of the fact that other countries have had female heads of state. Most of them are and have been able politicians. But the Middle East's argument right now is with the U.S. They already don't like us and think they are in a position to exercise control, mostly due to oil and investments. They have us dependent and afraid. We're like junkies in their eyes. Now we're going to force them to deal with either a military veteran, a woman or an apostate Muslim as our leader. Is there any reason to expect a good outcome, at least in the near future?

Yes, Ron Paul 08


He's economist, a realist, and a level headed man not inclined to lying to get his way.

[Jack]

I don't agree with Paul on several key points so I won't comment on him much except to say there's always an outside chance for him to prevail. He may be more acceptable to the Muslims, but then I wasn't arguing in support of not offending the Muslims by forcing them to deal with a woman or a turncoat they believe should die. If I had my way, they'd have to deal with some low level state department official who was gay, female, Black and atheist. Ah well, we all have our fantasies.

[Milton Bradley]

No, but just the same, you didn't include his as a viable alternative, which he remains.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: SoylentGreen (Jumps up and down, waving hands) Hey remember us, the rest of the world. Especially the countries like England and New Zealand that have actually already had or have women as leaders of the country. They manage to do diplomatic tours of middle eastern countries without pissing them off. It's being an AMERICAN president that's going to piss them off not the sex of the president.

I think you're right. It's American behavior that has pissed off many (not all) in the Muslim world. Then there is Muslim behavior, or more precisely, the behavior of elements within the Muslim world which should piss off many people. For instance, the intentional dynamiting of the 1500 year old Bamiyan Temple in Afghanistan by radical Muslims. Can you imagine if the US intentionally led an air strike to demolish the Kaaba at Mecca?

What should piss off the non-Muslim world is that despite years of talk about helping "the Palestinian brothers" the entire oil-rich and non-oil-rich Muslim world does precious little to help their Muslim brethren except poke sticks at a deplorable stiuation. So yes, all three of our candidates may not be in a position to mollify the "Muslim street", but when is the Muslim world going to denounce the outrages perpetrated by radical Islam and develop responsible foreign policies themselves?