Obama Islam Smear Changes Stripes

When the Islam smear against Obama first came out, it was based on the idea that he is currently, a Muslim.

Then the Pastor Wright controversy put that mess to rest, since Obama's affiliations to an obviously Christian Church became front and center.

Now there is a new Islam smear. This one says that Obama was a Muslim -- and as a result, he is going to arouse the wrath of Muslims around the world who are going to want to kill him for apostasy (converting away from Islam, punishable by death).

This new version comes to us via Edward Luttwak in the New York Times.

Luttwak says:

As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.

*

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings.

There are fundamental problems with views like Luttwak's.

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.

www.alieteraz.com

Comments

[DonDavis]

Riddle for Edward Luttwack: What Do Radical Muslims Hate More Than an ‘Apostate?’
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1817

[jbenhill]

Thanks for this great column. I have lived in very conservative Islamic countries, and even the most conservative jurists agreed that a) execution is a theoretical punishment that might apply in an Islamic state where a local member of the community was ostentatiously fighting Islam and had been called numerous times to repentance and b) a Muslim is someone who has at some time professed Islam as a faith. Most of them believed additionally that such prescriptions no longer applied, as they were for early times of war where leaving Islam meant allying oneself to enemies. (Like you, I'm not defending, just explaining.)

The NY Times op-ed makes the common Orientalist mistake of speaking about Islam as a mindless mass of blind traditionalists and speaking for Muslims as mutes who can't speak for themselves.

[MetryJen]

.....adding this to my faves to rebut the smear when I see it.....

Thanks!

[dapperd72]

HuffPost's Pick

I should further add that the Constitution's Article 6 states clearly that no religious test shall be applied to anyone serving in public office. The MSM & right-wing politicians who insist on forcing religion down our throats & obsessing over the religiosity or lack thereof for any candidate are patently anti-American by virtue of defying the fundamental law of the land, IOW the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the establishment clause which provides freedom *from* religion as much as *of* it. This means agnostics and atheists deserve exactly the same respect under the 1st Amendment as anyone who adheres to an established religion. I eagerly await the day when an atheist or agnostic candidate from any party runs for Senate, House, Governor or ideally President and receives the dignified coverage from the MSM she/he deserves. No one who refuses to bow down to an established religion or feels uncomfortable with the mythical notion of a Supreme Being should ever feel intimidated or stigmatized from becoming politically active for fear of public humiliation by the status quo defenders. A pox on the houses of all who try to discriminate against any such people who reject religious doctrine in the political realm!

[APerspective]

Change is coming and not a moment to soon. And in keeping with change, let’s start out by putting America’s closet raciest right out there on the white lawn and garden table set. All those WV voters and elsewhere, or those like Edward Luttwack who try intellectually argue that Obama is or was a Muslim don’t believe that for a moment, this is not their issue. The Muslim thing is plain and simple a euphemism (a very ugly one) and cleaver white folk’s code word for Obama being black, and many people will not vote for a black person. Hillary certainly gave credibility to this by exploiting it.

Racism is not an issue of intelligence; it is an issue of choice. It is very much the same as people who take up smoking knowing that it’s a deadly habit. Racism is a very ugly habit. But change is coming. I predict that once Obama is in office the whole country is going to say my God what a turd we had running the show! And leaders from say the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not be inciting the Muslim faithful over the family heritage of Barack Obama.

To all the “Obama is a Muslim” thinking people, prepare for free thinking. Prepare to become a marginalized minority if you don’t get over the color of your skin.

[CaseyBabes]

Ali, you went a long way into an explanation of why Obama does not qualify for execution as an ex Muslim, but should have quit before you referred to a "smear." Just remember one thing, in effect, perception is reality. Your principal, Edward Luttwack of the NYT, perceives what an overwhelming majority of all people believe, that abandoning Islam is a punishable by death offense within Sharia. Sadiki, this particular perception is a cold, harsh reality. Where's the smear of Islam?
Yes, I have veered slightly off topic, purposefully, as I don't speak for anyone but myself yet I believe many are of a like mind. I (we, maybe?) am fed up with how easy it is to get one's head chopped off for a religion. Is it in Sharia the act of "free will?" Cannot all people revere God in their own manner without angering another's belief?

[dapperd72]

Thanks to Ali for clearing these shariah law issues. Obama hardly knew his natural dad & I'm not even sure from reading "Dreams from My Father" if Barack Sr. was present at his son's birth. He never claimed to be a Muslim & was simply non-religious till he met Rev. Wright when he chose Christianity the same way an immigrant chooses another nation where to emigrate. The notion that falsely describing him as Muslim is a smear is based on the cultural bigotry against non-Judao-Christian adherents in the U.S. and is etymologically the essence of true anti-Semitism, since Jews & Muslims alike originated in the Semitic region as neighbors. Clearly one's parents' religious faith has no automatic consequences for that of the offspring, except in Judaism as you correctly assert, wherein we accept the religious traditions passed down to us from our ancestors, even if we don't devoutly practice them in the long term in an orthodox manner. Bias against Muslims isn't necessarily anti-immigration bigotry as many Muslims are born & raised in the U.S. just as most American citizens of Japanese descent who were interned during WW II were born & raised in the U.S. as well.

[yankee452]

Although I agree with the article completely, I can't help coming to the same conclusion I had when Obama's religion first became a topic. Aside from the fact that he is not a Muslim, WHEN DID IT BECOME A BAD THING TO PRACTICE ISLAM!!!??? This is America for goodness sake! I can't believe so many people feel they have to explain Obama's faith. It shouldnt ever be an issue. It certainly isn't an issue in the Constituti­on.....las­t I checked religion of any kind is not a prerequisite for any public office in this country - even the Presidency.

I am so embarrassed.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE!!

[Durango]

Absolutely. It is none of your business what Baraks religious beliefs might be. None of my business either.

And it sure as HELL is NONE OF THE MEDIAS business. Or the CRYPTO-FACISTS who are bring it up.

[LeaveArtieAlone]

I agree entirely, however and unfortunately, once a few individuals do very bad things, it is simply easier to blame the entire group for their actions. Fear is a good motivator for people to vote for 4 more years of tyranny. Bush/Cheney knew that and it worked for almost 8 MISERABLE YEARS!!!!!!!!

“last I checked religion of any kind is not a prerequisite for any public office in this country - even the Presidency.”

Constitutionally that may be true, however, the USA is being pulled so far right that now it is, sadly if it continues we will be an official religious state. And more oppression will continue because not everyone is Christian and not everyone is religious.

[Amomma]

I wish Kerry had been forthcoming about his Jewish heritage. He kept saying "I was an Alter boy" as if this image would make him more electable. Why do the play books of all these candidates sanitize their image. Obama had to be only Christian. He knew about his heritage and was cautioned about coming forward. "I am Christian" only possible answer to get elected. It is too bad because then people are vulnerable to "smears".

I wish we could elect people because of their diversity.

[MadFae]

Thank you so much for explaining this...not that it had any bearing on my support of Obama. But some people will try to use any little wedge, won't they? Insanity. I'm sure those people will lighten up once Obama's health care system comes into play, his middle class tax cuts kick in, and we start spending the trillions of dollars we're throwing at Iraq on on our country.

[Roses]

Unfortunately, some people have different agendae than education about religion and possible terrorist acts to our leaders. They just don't want someone named "Obama" to be president and this misinformation offers good excuses. Sad.
Obama '08

[helloworld2008]

In a country where 50% of people change religions once in their lifetime, I doubt this smear will have such a big effect.

Second, obscure arguments about Islamic law are lost on the main target of the original muslim smear emails - the ignorant. The people buying that crap were just uninformed and or stupid.

[JohnFromCapeCod]

When are they going to "GET IT" Its not about Religion, the Founding Fathers saw to that
with the Seperation of Church and State. It is about CHANGE and HOPE and the many ACTUAL ISSUES our Country faces this Election.

Racist saddy..appears to still be alive and well in 21st Century AmeriKa. GIVE IT A REST.

John From Cape Cod, Ma.

[shelobo]

That story is posted at the Taylor Marsh blog also.We are not BORN Christians ,we are born pure ,then thanks to the wonderful freedom we have in THIS country we are able to choose our OWN religious paths.Religion is not forced on many of us ,unless you are born into in one of the so called religious 'cults'.Religion means 'control,structured ,formed groups.True Christianty means FREEDOM to believe in whoever and whatever we choose ! I used to wonder why separation of state and religion was such an issue ,now I understand,ones religion can cause one many problems ,CHRISTIANTY leads us to be at peace with others and to have spirtual peace within OURSELVES.The bible does not say one word about being a democrat,republican or an independant ,it guides us to do unto others as we want to be done to!!And to love ALL others and to listen to Gods words!If voters were to put a politicans religious affiliations aside and LISTEN to what that politican wants to do for us ,they could make better choices when voteing .God help this country IF we keep listening to the fanatics .More churches fail because of strive within that church,this country could very well fail for that very same reason !! AMERICANS have to unite or we will be torn apart by political parties and religious fanatical LIES!! Heal thyself AMERICA ,before we try to heal others

[seemlessweb]

Very interesting piece, Ali. One of the transformative events of my education occurred when I took an Islamic law course at Harvard Law. Whenever I hear "popular" commentators assert that Islam says this or that I smile to myself. Islamic legal and political thought extends through about 13 centuries and has vast sources - Qu'ran, Hadith, the present opinion of the community of believers and qisas, or logical gap filling. Just the medieval literature is incredibly complex and I suspect there are many different views on this very question. I am not Muslim and I agree that this is America and we don't have religious tests for officeholders and so forth. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point out, as you do, just how ill informed popular commentary on these topics tends to be. That this exercise in hyperbolic speculation derives from the N.Y. Times op-ed pages does not at this point surprise me.

[Taaj]

Most corporate news in the United States is such a sham!

Propaganda, Sensationalism, and corporate ratings, Arianna thank you for your book!