Perhaps this Islam thing ain't so bad--OK, guys, I've made my profession thrice; now I'm in--DEATH TO THE APOSTATE DOG!! DEATH! DEATH! DEATH! DEATH! DEATH!!

Posted by: John C at May 12, 2008 1:27 PM

Somehow, despite the rants of Jeremiah Wright and Ottis Moss, I still somehow think that the United Trinity Church of Christ is a better religion than Islam. Not that that itself increases Obama's acceptability.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 12, 2008 1:43 PM

It took them a year to figure that out???

It seems to be the case where the truth is OK to report because it is one story most people will not want to believe.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at May 12, 2008 1:45 PM

Is it possible that the Jewish owned & operated NY Times will finally point out some things that are clearly negative and discrediting about Islam? That the major media, largely Jewish owned, has not been at the forefront of education on the true nature of the Islamic beast has seemed to me a most irresponsible and inexplicable phenomenon, esp. considering the virtual hate literature the Koran is especially with respect to Jews. Where has the NY Times and other media been? Why have they been so tolerant to the ideology that proclaims all willing infidels hell bound and the “worst of creatures”?

“But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world’s Muslims is the least realistic.”

Good point! And one that the Republicans, at least, should be making.

Posted by: FM at May 12, 2008 1:55 PM

There will be no seething in the Islamic world if Obama gets elected, because Obama is percieved as a softie who can be manipulated into capitulation towards Islamism. That is why Iran and Hamas openly support his candidacy - they will deliberately assuage any anxiety over Obamas apostasy to suit their own ends.

If, by chance, Obama turns out to be tough on terror, and call out Islamic extremism for what it is, then the Clerics will blow the lid off the story and there will be wide scale protests and recognition that America is truly a Satanic country, as they have put a Satanist in the white house.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at May 12, 2008 2:03 PM

"In any case, it's good to see the Times actually admitting the reality of Islamic law, instead of peddling the comforting fictions we usually see from them."

True, although the NYT wouldn't have allowed that piece if it wasn't politically expedient. Desperation time for Hillary, perhaps? Your info on the age determination in regard to Obama's conversion is important, but kinder, perhaps, than the author of the piece wished to be. Who knows - maybe he got his info from reading your older post, but left that out deliberately. It would be the NYT's typical way of cherry-picking facts. Let's see if there is a response and any follow-up. Or if the article is completely ignored, which would be par for the course.

I still think that most Muslims have already determined that his Marxism and malleabilty by the Soros/Gore/Kerry/U.N. internationalists will be more of a benefit to them, although there certainly is an argument to be made that some of the less "progressive" hardliners definitely could cause security problems for him in certain Islamic countries.

He also says, "That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be."

Liar.

Posted by: Connie at May 12, 2008 2:16 PM

"In any case, it's good to see the Times actually admitting the reality of Islamic law, instead of peddling the comforting fictions we usually see from them."

True, although the NYT wouldn't have allowed that piece if it wasn't politically expedient. Desperation time for Hillary, perhaps? Your info on the age determination in regard to Obama's conversion is important, but kinder, perhaps, than the author of the piece wished to be. Who knows - maybe he got his info from reading your older post, but left that out deliberately. It would be the NYT's typical way of cherry-picking facts. Let's see if there is a response and any follow-up. Or if the article is completely ignored, which would be par for the course.

I still think that most Muslims have already determined that his Marxism and malleabilty by the Soros/Gore/Kerry/U.N. internationalists will be more of a benefit to them, although there certainly is an argument to be made that some of the less "progressive" hardliners definitely could cause security problems for him in certain Islamic countries.

He also says, "That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be."

Liar.

Posted by: Connie at May 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Sorry for the double post. I got stuck on the preview page.

Posted by: Connie at May 12, 2008 2:22 PM

I've wondered about this Obama apostasy issue, too, for a long time.

The absence of any fatwas speaks loudly, but I'm not sure what the silence says.

Hamas has endorsed him, Ahmadinejad has endorsed him. Why would those folks endorse an apostate?

Ah, but that's a question for another day. And I don't know the answer to that one either.

Posted by: INFIDELATLARGE at May 12, 2008 2:33 PM

Just the fact that there is a discussion about whether OBama is an apostate and what might follow should be a clarion call to all those mulit-culturalists who put all religions (well, Christianity being the possible exception) on an equal footing. If Obama had been affiliated with any other religion while growing up, there would be no such discussion. I'm not a scholar of Mormonism or ever paid much attention to it, but if Mitt Romney had to give a speech on religion, why not Obama? But then again, never mind.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at May 12, 2008 3:22 PM

The New Duranty Times establishes Arabic language blog

May 8, 2008, 11:45 am

A Place to Read, and Comment on, Times Articles in Arabic
By Robert Mackey

As part of Generation Faithful, our ongoing series examining the lives of young people across the Muslim world at a time of religious revival, The New York Times has established an Arabic-language blog. It’s hosted through the news and blogging site Al Bawaba, and will allow readers in the Middle East to read and comment on articles in our series in Arabic.
The first article in the series, on marriage in Egypt, has already been posted on the new blog, and the next two articles in the series will be published there soon.
We are hoping to use the blog to expand the English-language discussion we started here in The Majlis section of The Lede, to open up the conversation to non-English-speakers, as we have for our series on Russia, Kremlin Rules, which is being discussed quite actively on our Moscow bureau’s LiveJournal blog.
We will translate some of the responses posted on the Arabic blog into English and post them on NYTimes.com in the coming days.

Posted by: miira at May 12, 2008 3:25 PM

The Secret Service routinely investigates and prosecutes all death threats against the US President.

If Obama gets elected, what will be the policy when countless numbers of imams proclaim from countless Mosques that "President Obama" should be executed for apostasy according to Islamic law?

Will the Secret Service treat presidential death-threats from an Imam the same as threats from a white-supremicist racist?

Posted by: Xero G at May 12, 2008 3:27 PM

I don't believe Obama has ever truly forsaken Islam. Surely he knows what they will do to him if they can.

But why should we worry about his ties to islam, when he openly welcomes black racism and hatred of all things American? Is there much of a difference between islam and his church in Chicago?

I don't think so.

Posted by: n.a. palm at May 12, 2008 3:35 PM

Barack Obama's "apostasy" is not the problem. His campaign has stated that. he never considered himself to be a Muslim. Those who keep harping on the notion that he was once a Muslim at or around the age of ten, and that he must admit to this, are setting themselves up for ridicule. What is worrisome is not that he was once a Muslim, or still more absurdly, considered to be a "secret Muslim," but that he is ignorant of Islam, and has not made any effort to investigate it, and may be sentimental about it, based on personal history: his desire to identify with his absentee Kenyan father, the fact that his mother's second husband was also a Muslim; his childhood experience in Indonesia, which may make him think he knows something about Islam but was as idiosyncratic and unrepresentative an experience of Islam as was that "experience of Islam" that a much older, but not wiser, Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz had when he was the American ambassador in Indonesia, not understanding what Islam was about, and taking his experience there -- with everyone trying to woo and win him ("yes, we really hope to establish diplomatic relations with Israel"), and the naiveté about Islam was not undone but reinforced, by his Arab girlfriend, no doubt a lady with all the right intentions, but who was herself a would-be reformer or tamer of Islam, who in that very role offered false hopes, and herself misrepresented the meaning, and menace, of Islam.
The problem with Barack Obama's supposed Muslim connection is that he has not shown any inclination to ponder the nature of Islam at its essence, and not in the modified unrepresentative form in which he may have, fleetingly and personally, encountered it. And a greater problem is a lack of historical knowledge, and a naiveté (without the viciousness) about the world that rivals that of Jimmy Carter, and a trust in such obviously disturbing "advisers" as the vicious, and naively realpolitiking, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

There's plenty to worry about with Barack Obama and his more-than-sufficient display, so far, of all the wrong foreign-policy instincts, including his dreamy belief that meeting and talking, with representatives of Iran (what could be the harm in merely meeting and talking? say some). The harm could be great. It would justify, it would dignify, it would give a boost in the minds of its own disaffected subjects, to the Islamic Republic of Iran. it would encoil us in useless, protracted discussions with those who are past masters at deception and deliberate delay, and who treat such meetings not as occasions for the exchange of views that we are expected to believe have not already, and repeatedly, been exchanged, but rather as instruments of war, the propaganda war that Muslims engage in, and we, alas, do not.

Posted by: Hugh at May 12, 2008 3:38 PM

Barack Obama is missing a trick. If he had announced that he was raised, or was considered by some to be, a Muslim, but never accepted the faith, and openly demonstrated his Christianity just as soon as he safely could, that would have gained him support. If he had depicted himself, perhaps correctly, as an apostate, that would have been even better. It would have put him in the company of Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, and others." ["Barack Obama Is Missing A Trick" at JW, March 17. 2007 and Robert Spencer's "Barack Obama And Islamic Apostasy" at JW on Feb. 12, 2007]
The description of Barack Obama as an apostate was briefly entertained as a possibility, and then subsequently dismissed, at JW. In that subsequent discussion, it was pointed out that to be considered an apostate in Islam one must have been practicing Islam beyond the age of puberty in order to subsequently be considered, if one abandons Islam, to be a true apostate; Barack Obama doesn't meet that criterion.
Of course, to primitive masses of Muslims there need not be alarm and offense taken at his being an apostate, but merely a kind of disappointment that someone once exposed, even in childhood, to the True Path of Islam, somehow nonetheless chose to become a Christian.
That, however, is quite a different point from the one that Luttwak was attempting to make, in which he raises a matter that had been raised, discussed, and disposed of long before.
There is, however, a problem with the perception, by non-Muslims as well as Muslims, that there is Islam in his, Barack Obama's background. Next to getting out of Iraq, and connected to that getting out of Iraq, the most important thing for the next American President to do is to begin to discuss with NATO allies, and others in Western Europe, how to handle the non-terrorist instruments of Jihad, including the continued deployment, by rich Arab governments (and especially Saudi Arabia) of the Money Weapon, continued seemingly unstoppable but in-fact-most-stoppable, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. There will have to be signs of mutual encouragement for strong measures on both sides of the Atlantic. And it will take a lot to get the leaders of Western European nations to slough off decades of timidity, rigidity, cupidity.
Now, will they be able to assemble, either in group meetings, or one-to-one, heads of state meeting with someone named Barack Obama, and candidly discuss their fears of Islam? Or will they come to believe that Barack Obama is in fact, if not a Muslim, at least someone to whom they cannot speak candidly about the meaning, and menace of Islam -- possibly because they fear his obvious residual affection for it (an affection that may be based on some quest-for-personal-identity psychic need, but cannot be pooh-poohed for all that)?
That's the real worry. That's the thing to ponder.: the suspicion that Obama has a personal stake in seeing Islam as more benign than it is. And furthermore, as someone who does not feel keenly the meaning of, and therefore does not worry much at all about the loss of, the Western civilizational legacy, or Muslim demographic conquest of that West, for the Western legacy was created over time mostly by -- let's admit it -- white people in Western Europe, and by descendants of those people in the New World, can Barack Obama feel as keenly the need to protect and preserve that legacy? He's at the same time “trans-racial” and “post-racial,” but what he really is is deliberately race-haunted, and there are worrisome signs that he relishes his being seen as the first “trans-racial” leader of a country which is not so much a country as a constituent member of the “international community.” Among the very few things about foreign policy he has let drop is that he’d been in favor – despite Wiliam Easterly, Peter Bauer, and all the others – in giving $50 billion in aid to Africa. At the same time, everything we know about him so far suggests that he is not overly concerned with the survival of Italy as Italy, of France as France, of England as England.
That's the deeper problem of Barack Obama and Islam. Not the "apostate" business.

Posted by: Hugh at May 12, 2008 3:48 PM

Response from Reader (when I clicked on the link):

"Shame on you for spreading ignorance and bigotry against Muslims."
S.A. Aleema, Chicago

For those of you playing the home game ...

If you're a non-Muslim quoting the Qur'an (or Hadith, or a high ranking "mainstream Muslim cleric") and you say what is in this article, you are an ISLAMOPHOBE that SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR SPREADING IGNORANCE AND BIGOTRY AGAINST MUSLIMS.

If, however, you are a Muslim, and say the same thing ... you clearly misunderstand your religion. When Islam says "Whoever changes his religion, KILL HIM," it really means "buy him a Frappucino."

Posted by: Lori B. at May 12, 2008 4:07 PM

Unless there is more evidence he was a Muslim by birth and indirectly renounced it as an adult by joining Wright's "Church." Someone should confirm his adult apostasy by asking him the following question.

Do you renounce Allah (Satan) and all his pomps?

Posted by: Drakkar at May 12, 2008 4:15 PM

Obama was reared by Unitarian grandparents who produced a daughter who was willing to marry muslims on two separate occasions. I doubt that Obama had much of a Biblical education in his youth. For someone who admits that his mixed background created identity issues, it's not surprising that he would land in Jeremiah Wright's church. I'd hardly call him a Christian but he can call himself anything he wants.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 12, 2008 5:35 PM

The issue was never whether or not Obama was "truly" or "secretly" a Muslim. It is what his very real (cannot be denied) Muslim HERITAGE would portend for him and for the USA if he is ever elected president. These connections might be a good thing. They might be a bad thing. Pretending they don't exist won't make them go away.
We have an issue with the international Muslim community, owing to the way Islam dictates freedom of religion for others. A lapsed Catholic would not face a death penalty from the Vatican. That anyone is even discussing the possibility, however remote, that an American president can be murdered on religious grounds should give us pause. This doesn't apply only to Barack Obama. What about the many fatwas issued against non-Muslim leaders?
A President Obama would not be saved by remaining on American soil. Given our past history with jihadists, it's not unreasonable to assume that even those Muslim Americans who would recoil in horror at the idea of killing Obama themselves would nevertheless stand by or even assist another Muslim who chose to act, at least after the fact.
The issue is how Obama's connections to Islam will affect his ability to lead America. That is a very valid issue, whether or not Obama is a practicing Christian, a practicing Muslim, an agnostic or an atheist.

Posted by: PMK at May 12, 2008 5:36 PM

I don't see how it matters.

Apostate or not, if Obama is elected President,fatwas calling for his death will be issued. Not because he is an apostate, simply because he is the President.

No matter who is elected President, there will be fatwas calling for his or her death.

This has been the case at least since George H.W. Bush, and will be the case for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: shortfattexan at May 12, 2008 5:36 PM

If you read the hundreds of comments on this article at the NYT website you will see that the vast majority of those commenting are frothing at the mouth at the thought that the Times would dare print such a “bigoted,” “uninformed” article, by such an “obscure” person, particularly when this article is about an entirely imaginary problem.

I noticed, too, that the vast majority of those commenting are emoting and not citing any basis at all except their apparently totally uninformed belief that the situation that Luttwak discussed—that according to Muslim law and custom Obama, as the son of a Muslim father and stepfather is now, as a Christian, an apostate and, thus, under a sentence of death in much of the Muslim world-- could not possibly be.

Finally, I also noticed that many helpful Muslims--some identifying themselves as such, some probably not-- from here and there around the world have written in, too, to tell all of us unbelievers that we should move along because, there is nothing to see here and, besides, “Islam is a religion of Peace.”

I made a comment citing the Qur’an and al-Bukhari’s authoritative Hadith which has Muhammad say, “Whoever leaves Islam, kill them.” But, the editors at the Times apparently decided that my comment, made early this morning, was not worthy of printing.

Posted by: GaryK at May 12, 2008 5:37 PM

Obama was reared by Unitarian grandparents who produced a daughter who was willing to marry muslims on two separate occasions. I doubt that Obama had much of a Biblical education in his youth. For someone who admits that his mixed background created identity issues, it's not surprising that he would land in Jeremiah Wright's church. I'd hardly call him a Christian but he can call himself anything he wants.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 12, 2008 5:37 PM

Both John McCain and Mike Huckabee have noted that HAMAS supports Obama and wants him to be President.Obama is also likely to lose in two landslides tomorrow to Hillary Clinton, a candidate who has been counted out by the media.If this happens clearly many Americans not just McCain and Huckabee have reservations about Obama.

Posted by: Roxane at May 12, 2008 5:48 PM

Once again, Hugh gets to the core issue and it is this:

Obama does not hold the U.S. and its founding principles dearly enough to be trusted to defend them.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 12, 2008 6:04 PM

After reading many of the comments to this article in the NYT, I see how many Americans are STILL ignorant of and deceived about, Islam.

How depressing.

Posted by: darcy at May 12, 2008 6:15 PM

I made a comment citing the Qur’an and al-Bukhari’s authoritative Hadith which has Muhammad say, “Whoever leaves Islam, kill them.” But, the editors at the Times apparently decided that my comment, made early this morning, was not worthy of printing.

Posted by: GaryK at May 12, 2008 5:37 PM

Right. What I saw were PC MoonBat comments, no others. I've posted 2 comments, which probably won't be printed as well. My God they are stupid dhimwits at the NYT.

Posted by: darcy at May 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Obama need not worry - he is too useful a tool for the jihadists. The nutjob mullahs in Iran and Saudi Arabia will be so happy to see him as president that they will declare him an "honorary Muslim" in the same way as Hitler declared his Japanese friends "honorary Aryans".

Posted by: RBLA at May 12, 2008 6:23 PM

"punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric".

That the NY Times is informing people of the bizarre and bloody nature of Islam is good news.

Kudos to you Robert and all the others helping to educate people on what Islam is about. It takes a long time to wake people up but once they do, Western culture can be surprisingly swift.

As a recovering liberal, I understand that lefties will equate criticism of Islam as bigotry, however in time enough will be won over to the truth about Islam. There is just too much dirt in the Koran and Hadith to ignore and the bloody vicious movements in Islam (sadly) are growing bolder each year. In time, liberals will get it.

Posted by: James Martel at May 12, 2008 6:46 PM

Once again, Hugh gets to the core issue and it is this:

Obama does not hold the U.S. and its founding principles dearly enough to be trusted to defend them.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at May 12, 2008 6:04 PM
================================================
This is the biggest problem the US, and the West in general, is facing right now -- there aren't very many people with any kind of influence who are defending Western values, such as the dignity and respect for all human life.

And at the same time, the muslim mafia is loudly and agressively pushing their values -- that muslims are superior to all other people, and that men are superior to women.

The most amazing thing to me is that two of the groups who stand to lose big-time are women and the media, and both of these groups are strangely silent about the threat they each face.

Both of these groups often complain about a return of the Catholic "inquisition", which, quite frankly, ain't gonna happen; but the muslim inquisition is happening right now, and growing, and they say virtually nothing.

HEY, DUMMIES, THE MONSTER IS GOING TO EAT YOU! YOU'D BETTER DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW, WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME!

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at May 12, 2008 6:49 PM

G Bush, has been one of the most prolific muslim killers in modern history. The majority in Iraq, but also other places. Yet muslims smootch with him, he kisses them, they make sweetheart deals, he gives them employment in sensitive areas. They come to his White House dinners, and he goes to their mosque and prays with them. And as 'we' know, and the muslims know, he is a dirty filthy Kuffir contaminating their mosque. And they are not supposed to make friends of him, so why do they allow this. Having The Chief Christian Crusader praying to Christ in their mosque is a little much, is it not? Has any Islamic authority issued a death fatwa for Bush? If not, why not...
So the question is, would a Barack presidency follow through with these same...very strange and questionable relationships? Would Obama go to the mosque and pray? And if he did so as a symbol, who/what would he be praying to? Will he defile the mosque by praying to Jesus, or will he keep it pure by praying to Allah? Will he have muslim leaders over for dinner? Often? Will he kiss them and hold hands in the garden? If Prez Barack does not call off Iraq immediately, he will also be a muslim killer, taking Bush's place. I wonder if the Bush attentive muslims, will be just as attentive to Barack...They may kiss him alright, with the kiss of...Oil smeared lips...ha ha betcha thought I was going to say 'death'...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 12, 2008 8:06 PM

This is all a catch 22 syndrome IMO. In most religions or belief systems there is a point in time when a person actively or mentally assents to the belief system.

In Islam if you brush up against it or know one who knows someone who is a muslim you could be one. Whether you want to or not. Oh, and if you don't like it you are an apostate and subject to all that entails!

This is just another reason why this whole system is not a legitimate religion. It is the cancer of the world and has been festering for 1400 years.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at May 12, 2008 9:08 PM

Highly unlikely as all the Muslims around the world are rooting for him to win. I personally feel he could possibly be the anti-christ and there are thousands of others around the world who feel the same.

Posted by: Bonniea at May 12, 2008 9:23 PM

Well, here's an OK comment among the majority of imbecilic moonbat ones:

"While this might be a far-fetched piece concerning Obama, the fact is that apostasy is, based on clear Islamic texts, a capital offense in many Muslim lands. If nothing else, this article might wake up some sleepy Americans who cannot see beyong their hatred of George Bush to the worldwide danger and threat of Sharia. Under traditional and text-based Islamic teachings, apostasy and homosexuality are capital offenses, violent jihad is an imperative, women are dirt, and non-Muslims are to be subjugated. This is not the view of "extremists" only, this is orthodox Islam. (take a look at the rantings of the senior Sunni scholar in Egypt if you don't believe me -- arguably the Islamic Pope). The fact that many individual Muslims don't accept all of this just means they are less than fully observant Muslims, not that, as W himself claimed, "Islam is a religion of peace." Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. have such a strong appeal among Muslims precisely because they can claim Islamic authenitity by pointing to Islamic texts like the Koran, sunna and hadith, as well as the example of Muhamed, to justify their actions."

Posted by: darcy at May 12, 2008 9:44 PM

Whether or not Obama was ever a Muslim, or if he's a committed Christian today, is not what the public should be debating.

Obama could very well think of himself as a Christian, as can anyone else, but share the same spirit as a Muslim.

The man sat in a "Christian" church for 20 years and soaked up the same spirit of anti-semitism and distain for everything good and noble in American society, as could be found in any Mosque in Mecca.

He supported a church that unashamedly honored a spiritual monster like Louis Farrakhan as a role model for members of his church.

Obama doesn't have to profess Islam to be a Muslim. All he has to do is surrender to the same spirit that motivates the Muslim world.

A lot of deceived Americans had better wake up before they put this man in the White house.

Posted by: rational at May 12, 2008 10:33 PM

Hugh, I think you're wrong about Obama.

I take liberty to quote you here:

What is worrisome is not that he was once a Muslim, or still more absurdly, considered to be a "secret Muslim," but that he is ignorant of Islam, and has not made any effort to investigate it, and may be sentimental about it, based on personal history: his desire to identify with his absentee Kenyan father, the fact that his mother's second husband was also a Muslim;

Although the Bommah calls himself a Christian, the black racist supremacy 'church' run by the ex-muslim Wright is anything but Christian. Wright himself is in cahoots with Farraklan and the Bommah is using NOI-thugs as body-guards. Wright, in his sermons sounds more like a hate-spewing imam than a Christian preacher. The whole concept of 'black liberation' is seditious and offensive, it is a hateful ideology which identifies with islam rather than with anything we hold dear.

The Muslims who support him know very well that the Bummah is not an apostate, but one of them.

Remember: Muhammad said "War is Deception"- and they are at war with us...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 12, 2008 11:18 PM

As harsh as the rules are, the rules are not mine..or ours.

Posted by: pismopal at May 12, 2008 11:30 PM

It should pointed out that assassination of a President Obama for apostasy, especially if it were loudly proclaimed as being justified under Islamic law, would not be a wise move for Islamists. Although they are not the most rational people in the world, I think even they would recognize that such a move could well be suicidal for them - and unnecessary. Instead, my guess is that they will make accommodation with the fact of an Obama apostate presidency, find some obscure Hadith to explain why he is a special case deserving an exception to the general rule, sell the story to the faithful in Friday prayers - and then work to exploit his sentimentality.

Posted by: Eastview at May 13, 2008 1:59 AM

Not to sound to weird but I had a dream that Obama was lying on ground with blood leaking out of his head. The idea of assassination is in my subconscious if nothing else.
My big concern is his perceived notion that one can weave their way in and out of Islam as it suits them. He goes to school but is not devout--he has Muslim father but a nno Muslim mother, he joins a Christian church, he pals around with the palestinians all the while courting the Jews. The drifting back and forth has no doubt left him with the perception that this behavior is acceptable in the Muslim world and nothing is further from the truth. It's all or nothing.

Posted by: PLCinTEXAS at May 13, 2008 7:15 AM

The Muslims who support him know very well that the Bummah is not an apostate, but one of them.

Remember: Muhammad said "War is Deception"- and they are at war with us...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 12, 2008 11:18 PM

I have to agree. This is how I feel, too.

Posted by: darcy at May 13, 2008 8:26 AM

Yeah, I was encouraged to see Luttwak's piece, as well. Like you, Robert I wrote about this some time ago and caught Hell for it...but from Redstate.com, of all places. It is a perfectly legitimate topic for conversation and discussion but people either intentionally or stupidly conflate the notion that you are SAYING that Obama IS a Muslim NOW (which is not what we're saying at all) with the notion that Muslims will believe that he has left the religion and is therefore an apostate.

I think a President Obama might find that he has trouble talking to people who believe that he has committed a capital offense.

Posted by: NOcomme1 at May 13, 2008 9:21 AM

The US (and others) needs a Constitutional Amendment, something to the effect of this, subject to some improvements:
=============================================
Whereby freedom of conscience and religion is consistent with other parts of the US Constitution, where any religion does not allow such is itself not in line with the US Constitution, and whereas Islamic religious law prohibits its former adherents to break from its tenacles, and Islamic law instructs death as the penalty for making this choice, Islam is forbidden to be practiced in the United States.

Posted by: confused at May 13, 2008 9:25 AM

The NYT reader comments to this article are SO SO painful and disturbing to read! This country is in real trouble. How totally uneducated most people are on Islamic doctrine. Anyone who has read books on the subject finds nothing shocking in Luttwak's article. But these comments are so clueless and shows how UNeducated the supposedly educated readers of the NYT are.

Look at this comment which is labeled an "Editor's Selection" ("NYTimes editors aim to highlight the most interesting and thoughtful comments that represent a range of views.")

"I am astonished that the NYT would publish such an inaccurate, irrational and inflammatory piece. Not only is this factually wrong, it appears based in large part on a similar article written by Daniel Pipes which appeared in frontpagemag.com on December 26, 2007, which itself is published by noted Islamophobe David Horowitz, relying on scholarship by that other Islamophobe Robert Spencer."

Hmmm, the editors think this is a "thoughtful" comment?

Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz are heroes who are educating people to the truth. Don't give up in the face of such saddening ignorance. Because of you, your books and websites, many of us J-Word Watch readers have woken up to the nature of the Jihadist threat.

Posted by: sp17 at May 13, 2008 9:39 AM

Eastview,

People seldom act in their own best interest. Assassinating or even postulating the idea of assassinating Obama wouldn't be wise, but how wise are the Islamists acting today? With every celebration of killing, they show us what they're about. Maybe the ones in the US are keeping a lower (not low - lower) profile, but that hasn't stopped Muslims around the world from electing Islamist leaders and financing and supporting terrorist activities.
Killing Obama might be suicidal? Well that defines many people in Islam: suicidal. They crave death. They keep banging that into our heads. We won't listen. We won't believe them. We are acting irrationally.

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 11:57 AM

Eastview,
What about 9/11? It was irrational and unnecessary. It was suicidal. They did it anyway.
They may be keeping mum about Obama because they are waiting to see what he will do. They might very well excuse Obama's Christianity and support him because they have certain expectations of him. What happens if he disappoints them?

Posted by: PMK at May 13, 2008 12:02 PM

FM. The New York Times is not Jewish owned or operated. Get off your anti-Semitism ignorance.

The most important point about Obama and religion is: what kind of judgment can we expect from someone who continually exposed his children to the hate speeches of Jeremiah Wright? What will they grow up thinking? Hate the US? Hate whites? Hate Jews? Hate the government?

Its his judgment that is deficient!

Posted by: winta at May 13, 2008 2:01 PM

FM. The New York Times is not Jewish owned or operated. Get off your anti-Semitism ignorance.

The most important point about Obama and religion is: what kind of judgment can we expect from someone who continually exposed his children to the hate speeches of Jeremiah Wright? What will they grow up thinking? Hate the US? Hate whites? Hate Jews? Hate the government?

Its his judgment that is deficient!

Posted by: winta at May 13, 2008 2:01 PM

Both of these groups often complain about a return of the Catholic "inquisition", which, quite frankly, ain't gonna happen; but the muslim inquisition is happening right now, and growing
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook

Exactly. They are so afraid of Christianity that they will embrace Islam until it is too late, and the life will be slowly squeezed out of them.

Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at May 13, 2008 3:48 PM